Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-0162 criminalCOMMONWEALTH In THE COURT Of COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO 98-0162 CRIMINAL TERM CHARGE: (1) DUI v. (2) CARELESS DRIVING (SUMMARY) (3) DRIVING UNDER SUSPENSION (SUMMARY; .DUI-RELATED) TINA MARIE HILL AFFIANT: TPR. CHRISTOPHER O i ~ Defendant OTN: E863091-5 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R, A, P, 1925 Before HOFFER, P.J, OPINION HOFFER, P.J.: In this opinion the Court addresses the findings to the captioned charges. After a jury trial, defendant was convicted on July 16, 1998, of Driving Under the Influence and Driving Under Suspension (DUI-related). The Court found defendant not guilty of Careless Driving. The Court set bail at $1,000, which was posted on July 16, 1998. Defendant absconded from the area when directed to appear for sentence. On August 4, 1998, a bench warrant was issued for her arrest and bail was forfeited. Defendant subsequently turned herself in to police in Charleston County, South Carolina on May 21, t999, and was extradited back to the Commonwealth by Transcor. On June 15, 1999, this Court imposed a judgment of sentence on defendant, from which she appealed to the Superior Court. Defendant's primary complaint is that the jury did not believe her side of the story. She and Michael Highlands each testified that Highlands took 98-0162 CRIMINAL defendant to two bars in Ed Benton's green pickup truck during the evening and early morning of October 18 and 19, 1997. According to defendant's testimony, Highlands waited in the truck, did not enter either bar and did not consume alcohol. Highlands testified that he drank two beers at the Oliver Plunket with defendant, who had mixed drinks and beer, but that he did not enter the second bar, the Three Pines. Both defendant and Highlands testified that after defendant exited the Three Pines, Highlands drove defendant to the Sheetz in Mount Holly Springs, entering from Route 34. Both testified that Highlands went inside the Sheetz, leaving defendant in the truck. Both testified that Highlands, upon seeing police officers inside the Sheetz when a warrant was outstanding for his arrest, fled the scene without returning to the truck. For the Commonwealth, two witnesses who did not know defendant, Jennifer Parsons and Christine Marie Barrick, testified that defendant drove the truck into the Sheetz parking lot at 2 a.m. on October 19, 1997. Parsons and Barrick each testified that defendant was alone in the truck. Two state police officers happened to be inside the Sheetz convenience store when the sound of squealing tires and the sight of a truck entering the lot drew them outside. There was testimony that the truck had been driven in a careless manner, and that it entered the Sheetz at a high rate of speed. Corporal Perry Tolbert and Trooper Christopher C. Ott of the Pennsylvania State Police approached the truck. They testified that defendant was alone in the truck. Both officers identified defendant 2 98-0162 CRIMINAL in court as the driver. Corporal Tolbert testified that he did not see Highlands at the scene, in the truck or in the Sheetz. The officers asked defendant her date of birth, which she could not give. Trooper Ott testified that defendant's eyes were blurry, glassy and bloodshot; her speech was incoherent and slurred; and the odor of alcohol lingered about her. Ott testified that after having witnessed these signs of intoxication in defendant, he arrested her for Driving Under the Influence. Defendant stipulated at trial that when her Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) was taken at 3:31 a.m. on October 19, 1997, it registered 0.174 percent. Defendant also stipulated that when she met the police officers at 2 a.m., her BAC was greater than 0.10 percent. Ott testified that at the scene, defendant told them that she had not been drinking, but then said she came from the Three Pines Tavern. Parsons testified that she could see the truck until the police arrived, and no one got out of the truck to enter the Sheetz. Parsons testified that defendant appeared to give the police "some attitude." Barrick testified that when the officers approached defendant in the truck, no one left the truck. Defendant was assigned court-appointed counsel on February 17, 1998. At trial, defendant admitted to her defense counsel on redirect that she had previously pled guilty to and was convicted of the charge of Unsworn Falsification to Authorities in an unrelated matter. Defense counsel Samuel VV. Milkes requested that the Court permit defendant to explain the prior conviction to the Court and the jury. The judge refused Milkes's request. Defendant was found 3 98-0162 CRIMINAL guilty of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, Driving With a BAC of .10% or Greater and Driving Under Suspension. Defendant was found not guilty of Careless Driving. The Court now re-addresses this matter because defendant is appealing on the basis of two issues. First, defendant contends that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence because Highlands and defendant both testified that he was the driver of the truck. Second, regarding her prior conviction for Unsworn Falsification to Authorities, defendant contends the Court should have permitted her to submit testimony to explain the prior conviction or place it in context after it was allowed into evidence. Discussion Defendant contends that the verdict was contrary to the weight of evidence when Highlands testified he, not defendant, was the driver. A claim that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence concedes that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict, but contends, nevertheless, that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Hod.qe, 441 Pa. Super. 653, 658, 658 ^.2d 386, 388 (1995). The decision whether to grant a new trial because the verdict is against the weight of the evidence rests within the trial court's discretion. Id. Only when the jury's verdict is so contrary to the weight of evidence as to shock one's sense of justice should a new trial be awarded. Commonwealth v. Haiqht, 332 Pa. Super. 269, 270, 481 A.2d 357, 358 (1984)(citing Commonwealth v. Miller, 303 Pa. Super. 504, 450 A.2d 40 (1982)). 4 98-0162 CRIMINAL The role of the appellate court in reviewing the weight of the evidence is to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. Id. Where the evidence is conflicting, the credibility of the witnesses is solely for the jury, and if its finding is supported by the record, the trial court's denial of a motion for new trial will not be disturbed. Id. In the instant case, Michael Highland testified that he, not defendant, drove the truck from the Three Pines into the Sheetz lot. Notes to Testimony at Trial (hereinafter N.T.), p. 77. The jury nevertheless found defendant guilty. In so finding, the jury determined that Highland's and defendant's credibility was lacking. Such a determination was properly within the jury's function when evidence conflicted. Commonwealth v. Hai.qht, 332 Pa. Super. at 270, 481 A.2d at 358 (1984)(citing Commonwealth v. Miller, 303 Pa.Super. 504, 450 A.2d 40 (1982)). The jury delivered a verdict consistent with the weight of the evidence in this case. The weight of the evidence supports the guilty verdict, particularly in light of the testimony of two unbiased witnesses and two police officers. Defendant also contends that she should have been permitted to submit testimony regarding her prior conviction for Unsworn Falsification to Authorities, to provide "context" for that conviction. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of any witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime, whether by verdict or by a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, shall be admitted if it involved dishonesty or false statement. Pa. R. E. 609(a). In addition, evidence of prior convictions can be introduced if the witness's day of 5 98-0162 CRIMINAL conviction or last day of confinement is within ten years of trial date. Commonwealth v. Randall, 515 Pa. 410, 415, 528 A.2d 1326, 1329 (1987). The prerequisites for the use of a record of prior convictions to impeach the credibility of a criminal defendant include, inter alia, clear proof, 1) that such record is authentic and accurate, and 2) that the present defendant is the same person as that to whom the convictions refer. Commonwealth v. Boyd, 463 Pa. 343, 351, 344 A.2d 864, 868 (1975).4 At common law, courts have limited the party presenting the prior conviction of a defendant or other witnesses to revealing the name of the offense, the time and place of the crime and the sentence imposed. Commonwealth v. O.qlesby, 274 Pa. Super. 586, 592, 418 A.2d 561,564 (1980); Commonwealth v. Washin.qton, 274 Pa. Super. 560, 566, 418 A.2d 548, 551 (1980). The Superior Court held that a trial court did not err when it refused to permit the defendant to offer evidence that the prior conviction was the result of a guilty plea. Commonwealth v. Washin.qton, 274 Pa. Super. 560, 566, 418 A.2d 548, 551 (1980). In this case, defendant took the stand in her own defense. While on redirect, defense counsel Milkes presented defendant's prior conviction for Unsworn Falsification to Authorities. N.T., p. 67. Defense counsel apparently Defense counsel did not have to follow this procedure because the defendant admitted to the prior conviction in open court. 6 98-0162 CRIMINAL anticipated entry of the prior conviction by the Commonwealth. Defense counsel followed standard procedure in bringing out the bad news first. Commonwealth v. Harner, 377 Pa.Super. 229, 245-246, 546 A.2d 1241, 1249 (1988). The conviction was admissible because it involved a false statement. Pa. R. E. 609.; Commonwealth v. Randall, 515 Pa. at 415, 528 A.2d at 1329 (1987). The conviction also was admissible under Randall because it took place fewer than ten years ago. Id.2 Defendant has not contested the accuracy of her prior conviction record, nor has she alleged its invalidity. Moreover, defendant admitted the prior conviction in open court. However, defendant is not entitled to provide details of that conviction beyond the name of the offense, the time and place of the crime and the sentence imposed. Commonwealth v. O~lesbv, 274 Pa. Super. at 592, 418 A.2d at 564 (1980); Commonwealth v. Washington, 274 Pa. Super. at 566, 418 A.2d at 551 (1980). When defendant communicated to the jury and this Court that, although having pled guilty, she was innocent of the prior conviction, she had stated more than she was entitled to speak. Id. Therefore, this Court properly refused to permit defendant to submit additional testimony regarding her prior conviction for Unsworn Falsification to Authorities. 2 Defendant pled guilty to Unsworn Falsification to Authorities on September 15, 1994. 7