HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-SA-0125-2006
COMMONWEALTH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
DAVID A. RICHARDSON, JR.
NO. CP-21-SA-0125 - 2006
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925
Guido, J. January
, 2007
The defendant has filed this timely appeal from our order of November 28,2006
imposing the mandatory minimum sentence in connection with his conviction for driving
under suspension, DUI related. 1 The only issue raised on appeal is the sufficiency of the
Commonwealth's evidence with regard to the identification of the defendant.
The facts of this case may be summarized as follows. On January 29,2006,
Trooper Michael Brandtonies was on routine patrol when he stopped to get gas at a local
Sheetz. His attention was drawn to an old model Chevrolet because the driver was
paying undue attention to him. The Chevy parked nearby.2 The driver began pumping
gas and continued to stare at the Trooper. His suspicion aroused, the Trooper ran the
Chevy's plate number. It came back registered to the defendant. The information also
indicated that the defendant's license was suspended, DUI related.
Since the Trooper felt that he did not have enough probable cause to stop the
driver at that point, he requested a picture of the defendant from Penn DOT's JNET. The
Trooper described what happened next:
The computer was running slow all night. I waited a few minutes. I
figured it was going to take longer, so I decided to leave.
1 75 Pa. C.S.A. ~ 1543 (b).
2 The driver was the sole occupant of the vehicle.
NO. CP-21-SA-0125 - 2006
As soon as I left the parking lot, the JNET photos did come up. It was the
spitting imagine [ sic] of the person that was staring at me for the past
five minutes. . . 3
(emphasis added).
Since the Trooper was unable to make contact with the defendant at his residence, he
filed the citation at issue and requested a summons.
Defendant contends that the Commonwealth's evidence was insufficient to prove
that he was the man Trooper Brandtonies saw driving the vehicle on January 29,2006.
Admittedly, the Trooper's identification testimony at trial was equivocal. The in court
identification occurred during the following exchange:
THE COURT:
THE WITNESS:
Q. Who was the occupant of the vehicle? Is he in this courtroom
today?
A. It was David Richardson, Jr., is what all of my information
indicated.
Do you recognize him here in court?
He looks similar to that individual, but he looks different from
the day of the stop, Your Honor.
Why is that?
His hair is gray. His hair is shorter. He has facial hair. He
did not look like that at that time, and he did not look like that
at the previous trial. 4
THE COURT:
THE WITNESS:
Without additional evidence, we might agree with defendant's contention that the
Commonwealth failed to sustain its burden of proving that he was the driver of the
Chevy. However, there was substantial additional evidence. As noted above; the
Trooper testified that the JNET picture was "the spitting image" of the driver.5
Furthermore, the JNET photo used by the Trooper to identify the defendant was admitted
into evidence as Commonwealth Exhibit 1. We questioned the Trooper regarding the
photo:
3 Transcript of Proceedings, p. 8.
4 Transcript of Proceedings, pp. 4, 5.
5 Transcript of Proceedings, p. 8.
2
NO. CP-21-SA-0125 - 2006
THE COURT:
Does that photograph resemble the man that was pumping
gas?
Your Honor, this is exactly what he looked like, the same
hairdo, the same length and everything6.
THE WITNESS:
(emphasis added).
Based upon the testimony of the Trooper, which we found to have been credible,
we were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the driver of the
Chevy.7 Therefore, we found him guilty of driving under suspension, DUI related.
DATE
Edward E. Guido, 1.
District Attorney
Timothy L. Clawges, Esquire
:sld
6 Transcript of Proceedings, p. 6.
7 While the defendant presented an alibi witness, we did not find his testimony to be credible.
3