HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-1692 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH
Ve
JULIE ANN OTT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 96-1692 CRIMINAL TERM
CHARGE: DUI
IN RE: OPINION BURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925
Oler, J., March 20, 1998.
In this bench-trial criminal case, Defendant Julie Ann Ott has
appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court from a judgment of
sentence for driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of
Section 3731(a)(4) of the Vehicle Code.~ The bases for the appeal
have been specified as follows:
(1) The Commonwealth failed to produce
evidence sufficient to find guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.
(2) The checkpoint at which the Defendant was
stopped was not constitutionally valid in that
it was moving from location to location
without prior arrangement and in failing to.
otherwise meet the requirements established
for conducting roadblocks.
(3) The Defendant was detained without
probable cause after being stopped at the
checkpoint.
(4) The police officer who conducted the
roadblock acted without authority outside
their jurisdiction under the supervision of a
neighboring District Attorney.2
~ The court imposed a sentence of a term of imprisonment of
48 hours to 23 months, a fine of $300.00, a $10.00 Emergency
Medical Services Fund Assessment, a $50.00 CAT Fund surcharge, and
a $45.00 per day incarceration fee.
2 Defendant's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on
appeal. A fifth item in Defendant's Statement noted that "[t]he
matters raised herein are the same matters raised in Commonwealth
v. Stouffer, 96-1690 Criminal Term." Id.
NO. 96-1692 CRIMINAL TERM
The second, third, and fourth issues were addressed in an
opinion of this court which accompanied an order disposing of the
Defendant's suppression motion on June 12, 1997. The present
opinion will address the issue of sufficiency of the evidence.
In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a guilty
verdict, a court must "view the evidence, and all reasonable
inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth as the verdict winner." Commonwealth v. Modaffare,
529 Pa. 101, 103, 601 A.2d 1233, 1234 (1992), citing Commonwealth
v. Hughes, 521 Pa. 423, 555 A.2d 1264, (1989). The evidence,
viewed in this light, was as follows:
On September 1, 1996, Defendant, while operating a motor
vehicle, came upon a d.u.i, checkpoint on Route 696 in Shippensburg
Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania at 2:20 ~a'~m. The
officers at the checkpoint detected the odor of an alcoholic
beverage upon the Defendant's breath and questioned her about her
alcohol consumption that evening. After admitting to having
consumed a few drinks, Defendant was directed to a pull-off area
for field sobriety tests. After performing poorly on the sobriety
tests, Defendant was placed under arrest. At 3:43 a.m., Defendant
was given a breathalyzer test to determine her blood alcohol
content (BAC). The test revealed that Defendant's BAC was 0.118
percent at that time.
NO. 96-1692 CRIMINAL TERM
Doctor G. Thomas Passananti, a forensic toxicologist,
testified that, assuming that Defendant Ott was stopped at 2:20
a.m., that she was given a breathalyzer test at 3:43 a.m., and that
her BAC test result was 0.118 percent, he was capable of rendering
an opinion, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, as to
Defendant's BAC at the time she was driving. Factoring in the 1.3
hour lapse in time between the stop and the test, Dr. Passananti
opined that Defendant's BAC was 0.142 percent at the time Defendant
was driving. On cross-examination, Dr. Passananti testified that,
given the stipulated information, there was in his opinion no way
that Defendant Ott's BAC would have been below 0.10 percent at the
time of the stop.
Defendant Ott did not present any testimony to contradict the
expert testimony of Doctor Passananti. Defendant al~ did not
present any testimony to establish that an unusual pattern of
drinking may have contributed to the outcome of the BAC test.
Having found the evidence presented by the Commonwealth,
including the testimony of Dr. Passananti, to have been credible,
the court in its capacity as trier of fact concluded, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that Defendant had been driving under the
influence of alcohol in violation of Section 3731(a)(4) of the
Vehicle Code on the occasion in question. Based upon the standard
for review of the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case
3
NO. 96-1692 CRIMINAL TERM
discussed above, it is believed that the evidence presented was
sufficient to sustain the court's verdict.
John Abom, Esq.
Assistant District Attorney
H. Anthony Adams, Esq.
Assistant Public Defender