HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-2782 criminalCOMMONWEALTH
VS.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
99-2782 CRIMINAL
CLYDE RI CHARD MARTIN ' .
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925
On May 9, 2000, the defendant, Clyde Richard Martin, following trial by jury, was found
guilty of driving under the influence. He was subsequently sentenced to undergo a period of
incarceration of not less than ninety days nor more than twenty-three months. This appeal
followed. In his statement of matters complained of on appeal, the defendant raises one issue;
namely, whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant was driving.
The well-established test for the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether,
viewing all the evidence admitted at the trial in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth and
drawing all reasonable inferences in the Commonwealth's favor, there is sufficient evidence to
enable the trier of fact to find every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
Commonwealth v. Gibson, 447 Pa. Super. 132, 668 A.2d 552 (1995). The facts as established by
the Commonwealth are as follows.
On December 24, 1998, at approximately 6:30 p.m., the defendant was involved in a
single-car accident on Allen Road, North Middleton Township, west of the borough of Carlisle
in Cumberland County. As a result of the accident, the car was severed into two pieces. The
front part of the car came to rest against a tree and the remaining portion of the vehicle was on
the roadway. The first people on the scene, Linda and Douglas Carr, called for help and checked
to see if anyone was alive. Linda found the defendant in the backend of the car. He was trapped
behind the front seat and the door. She shouted to the defendant several times to see if he was
still alive. Eventually, the defendant moved his hand and began to regain consciousne, s.s.. Lin4a
asked him if there was anyone else in the car with him. The defendant indicated that there was
not but when asked again, minutes later, the defendant indicated (hat thef~ had been someone
·
..
else with him.
Shortly thereafter, firemen and ambulance personnel arrived. A search was conducted to
insure that no one else had been thrown from the vehicle. They searched the area surrounding
the accident scene based upon their experience with respect to the most likely place that a person
would have been thrown. The search, as far as fifty yards from the front of the car, yielded no
traces of blood, clothing or other evidence of another occupant of the vehicle.
Emergency personnel questioned the defendant again about whether anyone else was in
the car with him. Michael Murray, one of the emergency workers at the scene, testified that the
defendant indicated that he was not the driver. Once the defendant was put into an ambulance,
Murray, a paramedic, and Corporal Kenton McCoy of the Carlisle Police Department stressed to
the defendant that it was important to know whether there was anyone else in the vehicle with
him. The defendant then stated that he had been drinking and that he was the only one in the car.
We are satisfied that the evidence in this case is more than sufficient to support a
conviction of driving under the influence. There is ample evidence to support the conclusion that
the defendant was the only person in the vehicle and, therefore, was the driver. It is true that the
defendant vacillated as to whether there was anyone else in the car but, once informed of the
importance of the matter, he admitted that he was the only person in the vehicle. Moreover, a
careful search of the scene yielded no evidence of another person. In addition, the vehicle
involved in the accident was owned by the defendant, belying the suggestion in his testimony
that he may have been picked up from the bar by someone else.
August 15, 2000
Michelle Hamilton, Esquire
Assistant District Attorney
Aria Waller, Esquire
Assistant Public Defender
:rim