Commonwealth v. Muhammad, R., Aplt.

Summary

This dissent argues that the jury's explicit finding that Muhammad did not possess the firearm made the evidence legally insufficient to support his conviction for carrying a firearm without a license. It would treat constructive possession as an implicit element of the offense when the firearm was not found on the defendant's person and would give preclusive effect to the jury's special interrogatory. The dissent also rejects the majority's distinction between possession and possession with control and warns that redefining “carries” will unsettle longstanding precedent.