Commonwealth v. Muhammad: Firearms Conviction, Special Interrogatories, and the Doctrine of Inconsistent Verdicts

Commonwealth v. Rasheed Muhammad, No. 109 MAP 2023 (May 30, 2025)

Background of the Case

Rasheed Muhammad was charged with multiple offenses, including persons not to possess firearms (18 Pa.C.S. §6105) and carrying a firearm without a license (18 Pa.C.S. §6106). The §6105 charge required proof of a prior conviction—something the trial court, in agreement with both parties, sought to keep from the jury to avoid undue prejudice. To address this, the court told the jury only that Muhammad was charged with “[p]ossessing a firearm,” a label that does not actually exist under Pennsylvania law.

The verdict slip included a special interrogatory: “Did the Defendant possess and have under his control a firearm, to wit, a Smith & Wesson .38 caliber special?” The jury answered “no.” Despite this, they convicted him of carrying a firearm without a license (§6106) and resisting arrest. He was acquitted of forgery and conspiracy charges.

The trial court sentenced Muhammad to 3½–7 years for carrying without a license and two years’ probation for resisting arrest. On appeal, the Superior Court upheld the conviction, finding the evidence sufficient under a theory of constructive possession and holding that the jury’s “no” answer did not invalidate the verdict.

The Core Legal Issue

At the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the central question was:
Does a jury’s “no” answer to a specific interrogatory on firearm possession negate the sufficiency of evidence supporting a conviction under §6106?

Muhammad argued that it did. Since carrying a firearm without a license inherently requires possession, he maintained that the jury’s explicit finding that he did not possess a firearm should have barred the conviction.

The Commonwealth countered that the principles of inconsistent verdicts controlled. They argued that the interrogatory was not tied to §6106 but instead linked to the §6105 charge. Moreover, §6106 requires proof of carrying, not necessarily “possession and control,” as the interrogatory phrased it.

The Supreme Court’s Majority Opinion

The Court affirmed Muhammad’s conviction, relying heavily on three findings:

1. Conjunctive Nature of the Interrogatory
   The interrogatory asked whether Muhammad “possessed and had under his control” the firearm. The Court emphasized that this was not equivalent to asking whether he “carried” a firearm. It was a compound question tied to a non-existent offense, which did not directly relate to the statutory language of §6106.

2. Sufficiency of the Evidence
   Evidence showed that Muhammad was the only occupant of the car, the firearm was in the console next to him, he manipulated the console where the gun was stored, and he attempted to conceal it. The car was rented to him, and his personal mail was inside. He had no license to carry. Taken together, these facts supported a finding of constructive possession and sufficed to prove carrying without a license.

3. Special Interrogatories in Criminal Cases Are Improper
   The Court took the opportunity to ban the use of special interrogatories in Pennsylvania criminal trials. It reaffirmed prior precedent (Commonwealth v. Samuel, 961 A.2d 57 (Pa. 2008)) that such interrogatories are inappropriate because they invite confusion and undermine the jury’s role. Instead, trial courts should use bifurcated procedures to protect against prejudice from prior convictions.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinions

• Justice Wecht (concurring and dissenting): Argued that “carrying” under §6106 requires possession, which implies control. He believed the jury’s “no” answer was inconsistent with the guilty verdict and warranted reversal.

• Justice Brobson (concurring and dissenting): Raised concerns about the implications of inconsistent verdict doctrine in this unique context.

• Justice McCaffery (dissenting, joined by Justice Donohue): Maintained that the jury’s factual finding should control and that the conviction should not stand.

Doctrinal Significance

This case reinforces several principles in Pennsylvania criminal law:

• Inconsistent Verdict Doctrine: Courts will not disturb verdicts merely because of apparent inconsistency. The sufficiency of the evidence is the controlling safeguard.

• Constructive Possession: A defendant need not physically hold a firearm to be convicted; proximity, knowledge, and circumstances showing intent to control can suffice.

• Elimination of Special Interrogatories: This decision closes the door on a practice that has long been disfavored in criminal trials, steering courts toward bifurcation when necessary to shield juries from prejudicial information.

Practical Implications

• For Prosecutors: This case affirms the broad latitude to proceed under constructive possession theories when firearms are found in vehicles.

• For Defense Counsel: The ruling underscores the difficulty of overturning convictions based on jury inconsistencies, emphasizing the need to attack sufficiency directly.

• For Trial Courts: The decision mandates structural reforms in jury instruction where prior convictions are relevant but prejudicial.

In Commonwealth v. Muhammad, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clarified that a jury’s negative answer to a flawed interrogatory does not invalidate a firearms conviction under §6106. By eliminating the use of special interrogatories in criminal trials, the Court provided guidance for future cases while reaffirming the centrality of sufficiency review and constructive possession doctrine.