Pa. Cons. Stat. » 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. (CRIMES AND OFFENSES) / Chapter 61
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6104 (2026)

 Evidence of intent.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 6104.  Evidence of intent.

In the trial of a person for committing or attempting to commit a crime enumerated in section 6105 (relating to persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms), the fact that that person was armed with a firearm, used or attempted to be used, and had no license to carry the same, shall be evidence of that person's intention to commit the offense.

(June 13, 1995, 1st Sp.Sess., P.L.1024, No.17, eff. 120 days)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Hall, 830 A.2d 537 (Pa. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Hall, 830 A.2d 537 (Pa. 2003). · cites it 13× “§ 2702(a)(2); and (2) the constitutionality of the trial court's jury charge premised upon 18 Pa.C.S. § 6104. For the following reasons, we affirm.”
Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002). · cites it 4× “Then, during the discussion of what charges the court would give to the jury, the Commonwealth requested that the jury be given a charge based upon 18 Pa.C.S. § 6104. Section 6104 provides: In the trial of a person for committing or attempting to commit a crime enumerated in…”
Commonwealth v. Fortson, 165 A.3d 10 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “” 18 Pa.C.S. § 6104. Appellant argues that he did not initiate the physical altercation, which appears to assert that he acted in self-defense rather than pre-meditated the killing.”
Commonwealth v. Kelly, 724 A.2d 909 (Pa. 1999). · cites it 8× “This Court granted review solely to determine whether the Superior Court erred in reversing appellees' convictions for first degree murder on the ground that an instruction to the jury that tracked the language of Section Eighteen of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act (18…”
Commonwealth v. Williams, 176 A.3d 298 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). “18 Pa.C.S. § 6104. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, 2/6/17, at 22.”
Commonwealth v. Sattazahn, 631 A.2d 597 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993). · cites it 4× “[4] 18 Pa.C.S. § 6104. The jury instruction was based upon the language contained in Section 6104.”
Commonwealth v. Buehl, 658 A.2d 771 (Pa. 1995). · cites it 2× “Both of the charge and the verdict slip cite 18 Pa.C.S. § 6104, which provides: § 6104.”
Commonwealth v. Fitzgerald, 877 A.2d 1273 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005). “Appellant claims that a new trial is required because the trial court instructed the jury in accordance with the dictates of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6104, which provides, “In the trial of a person for committing or attempting to commit a crime enumerated in section 6105 (relating to…”
Com. v. Wells, E. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015). · cites it 2× “18 Pa.C.S. § 6104. Appellant avers that Article V, § 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution confers exclusive procedural rule-making authority with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.”
Com. v. Gaynor, C. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022). “This instruction was drawn directly from a standard jury instruction based on 18 Pa.C.S. § 6104, which provides as follows: In the trial of a person for committing or attempting to commit a crime enumerated in section 6105 (relating to persons not to possess, use, manufacture,…”
Com. v. Jones, B. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023). “2017) (citing 18 Pa.C.S. § 6104). We also derive guidance from Commonwealth v.”
Com. v. Adorno, F. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024). “In Appellant’s third claim he contends that the trial court’s charge, consistent with the Standard Jury Instruction based on 18 Pa.C.S. § 6104, “seems to violate fundamental due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution” because it “creates an…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.