Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-1636 criminalCOMMONWEALTH Vo ROBERT JAMES TOWNSEND : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 98-1636 CRIMINAL TERM : CHARGE: ( 1 ) DUI : (2) UNLAWFUL POSSESSION : OF SMALL AMOUNT : MARIJUANA : (3) DRIVERS REQUIRED TO : BE LICENSED (SUM) OPINION PURSUANT TO APPELLATE RULE 1925. On February 19, 1999, a non-jury trial was held before this Court in connection with the above charges. Defendant was found guilty of Driving Under the Influence and Possession of a Small Amount of Marijuana. On March 23, 1999, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for thirty (30) days to twenty-three (23) months on the DUI charge and to pay the costs of prosecution on the Possession charge. Defendant filed a timely appeal to the Superior Court. According to his Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on APpeal, Defendant contends that the Honorable Kevin A. Hess erred in failing to grant his motion to suppress evidence.~ He further contends that the evidence presented to this Court at the non-jury trial was not sufficient to justify his conviction under Section 3731(a)(1) of the Vehicle Code (75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3731(a)(1)). In this opinion, written pursuant to Pa. Rule of Appellant Procedure 1925, we will address the sufficiency of the evidence claim. ~The reasons for Judge Hess's denial of Defendant's Motion to Suppress are fully set forth in his opinion filed on February 19, 1999. NO. 98-1636 CRIMINAL TERM STATEMENT OF FACTS At about 11:25 p.m. on June 8, 1998 Trooper Jonathan Mays of the Pennsylvania State Police noticed the Defendant operating his vehicle with only one headlight functioning.2 The trooper proceeded to stop the vehicle to discuss the missing headlight,a As the Defendant produced his license and registration, the trooper noticed an odor of alcohol.4 He further noticed that the Defendant's eyes were bloodshot and glassy and that his movements were slow and deliberate,s When questioned by the trooper, the Defendant admitted that he had been drinking. At the trooper's request the Defendant got out of the vehicle. As he came out of the car his movements were unsure. He had trouble standing without swaying and needed to use the car for support.? He attempted to light a cigarette and put the wrong end in his mouth.8 When asked to perform field sobriety tests the Defendant refused, conceding that he was under the 2Notes of testimony, p.5, (Ail references to notes of testimony contained in this opinion are to the notes of testimony for the non-jury trial held before us on February 19, 1999). 3Notes of testimony, p. 5 4Notes of testimony, p. 5. SNotes of testimony, p. 5. 6Notes of testimony, p. 6. ?Notes of testimony, p. 6. "Notes of testimony, p. 7. NO. 98-1636 CRIMINAL TERM influence.' The trooper further testified that, based upon his experience and training as a police officer, he was of the opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol to a degree that rendered him incapable of safe driving.~° Additionally, the parties stipulated that the Defendant's blood alcohol content at the time of the traffic stop was .163%.~ Based upon the above facts we found the Defendant guilty of "driving under the influence of alcohol to a degree that rendered him incapable of safe driving and/or with a blood alcohol content above a .10 percent."~2 DISCUSSION · In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence we must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, the trier of fact could have found each and every element of the crime charged was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Com. v. Montini., 712 A.2d 761, 767 (Pa. Super. 1998). In the instant case, the Defendant concedes that all of the elements 9Notes of testimony, p. 7. 1°Notes of testimony, p. 11. l~Notes of testimony, p. 13. ~2Notes of testimony, p. 20-21. Defendant had been accused with violating 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3731(a)(1) and (4). By our verdict we found him guilty of violating both subsections. NO. 98-1636 CRIMINAL TERM were proven except the inability to drive safely. The evidence presented at trial left no doubt that Defendant was under the influence of alcohol to a degree that rendered him incapable of safe driving. He exhibited the classic signs of alcohol intoxication, including the odor of alcohol, bloodshot, glassy eyes, unsure movements and the inability to stand without swaying. In refusing to submit to field sobriety tests, he conceded that he was under the influence.~ In addition, the trooper testified that, in his opinion, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol to a degree that rendered him incapable of safe driving Notwithstanding this overwhelming evidence, the Defendant argues that because there was no evidence of unsafe driving, the Commonwealth has failed to prove that he was incapable of safe driving. This position defies all reason and common sense. It also lacks any basis in our case law. The facts in the instant case are very similar to those in Com. v. Kowalek, 436 Pa. Super. 361 647 A.2d 948 (1994) in which the Court held that · .. a charge under Section 3731(a) (1) supported by sufficient evidence that the driver was not in control of himself, such as failing to pass a field sobriety test, could establish the driver was under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered him stop. ~3He also conceded that his BAC was .163% at the time of the ~4A police officer is competent to testify as to his opinion of the Defendant's intoxication and ability to drive safely. Com. v. Ragan, 438 Pa. Super. 505 (1995) 652 A.2d 925. Com. v. Ne.i. swon~er, 338 Pa. Super. 625 (1985) 488 A.2d 68. NO. 98-1636 CRIMINAL TERM incapable of safe driving, notwithstanding the absence of evidence of erratic or unsafe driving. 436 Pa. Super. at 369, 647 A.2d at 952.~s It does not take a great leap of faith to deduce that someone who is too drunk to stand without swaying or using a car for support is too drunk to safely drive that vehicle. Edward E. Guido, J. cc: William I. Gabig, Esquire For the Commonwealth Karl E. Rominger, Esquire For the Defendant ~SSee also Com. v. Feathers, 660 A.2d 90, 442 Pa. SUper. 490 (1995). 5 ~ 1~'~'! -'~' ~ .... ~:=~