HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-1690 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH
V®
TERRI LYNN STOUFFER
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 96-1690 CRIMINAL TERM
CHARGE: DUI
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925
Oler, J., March 20, 1998.
In this bench-trial criminal case, Defendant Terri Lynn
Stouffer 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 second, third, and fourth issues were addressed in an
opinion of this court which accompanied an order disposing of the
~ The court imposed a sentence of 48 hours to 23 months
incarceration, 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.
NO. 96-1690 CRIMINAL TERM
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, the 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 roadblock on Route 696 in Shippensburg
Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania at 2:35 a.m. officer
Eric S. Varner detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage upon the
Defendant's breath and administered field sobriety tests. After
performing poorly on the sobriety tests, Defendant was placed under
arrest. At 4:05 a.m., Defendant was given a breathalyzer test to
determine her blood alcohol content. The test revealed that
Defendant's blood alcohol content was 0.170 percent at that time.
Dr. G. Thomas Passananti, a forensic toxicologist, testified
that, considering that Defendant Stouffer was stopped at 2:35 a.m.,
that she was given a breathalyzer test at 4:05 a.m., and that the
test results indicated that Defendant's BAC was 0.170 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
NO. 96-1690 CRIMINAL TERM
driving. Factoring in the 1.5 hour lapse in time between the stop
and the test, Dr. Passananti opined that Defendant's BAC was 0.197
percent at the time she was.driving.
Defendant Stouffer did not present any evidence to contradict
the expert testimony of Dr. Passananti. Defendant also did not
present any testimony tending 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 that Defendant
had, beyond a reasonable doubt, 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 discussed.~bove, it
is believed that the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain
the court's verdict.3
John Abom, Esq.
Assistant District Attorney
3 Given the ~igh BAC test result in this case, it is possible
that the Commonwealth,s evidence even without expert testimony
might have supported a finding of guilt. See Commonwealth v.
Yarger, 538 Pa. 329, 334, 648 A.2d 529, 531 (1994).
3
NO. 96-1690 CRIMINAL TERM
H. Anthony Adams, Esq.
Assistant Public Defender
: rc
4