HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-1640 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH
Vo
RONALD HASWELL-
ANDREWS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 98-1640 CRIMINAL TERM
CHARGE: PERIODS REQUIRING
LIGHTED LAMPS
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925
Oler, J., December 29, 1998.
In this Vehicle Code case, Defendant has filed a pro se appeal to the Pennsylvania
Superior Court from a judgment of sentence for driving without headlights.t The summary
trial was conducted by the writer of this opinion on November 2, 1998.
No response has been filed to an order of this court directing Defendant to file a
statement of matters complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate
Procedure 1925(b).2 Consequently, it will be assumed that the issue being raised on appeal
is sufficiency of the evidence.3
This opinion in support of the judgment of sentence is written pursuant to
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
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
i Act of June 17, 1976, P.L. 162, §1, 75 Pa. C.S. §4302(a)(1).
2 Order of Court, December 4, 1998.
3 See Commonwealth v. Blain, 47 Cumberland L.J. 270, 270-71 (1998).
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. 423,430, 555 A.2d
1264, 1267 (1989). The trier of fact is "free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence."
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 506 Pa. 469, 475, 485 A.2d 1102, 1105 (1984) (citations
omitted).
Viewed accordingly, the evidence at the trial may be summarized as follows. At
approximately 1:15 a.m. on Monday, April 27, 1998, Officer Paula Mullen of the Middlesex
Township Police Department, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, was (as she testified) in
full uniform and in a marked patrol car, proceeding north on State Route 11 in the township.4
She observed a 1972 green Mercury automobile driven by Defendant approaching from the
opposite direction without its headlights on.s
Officer Mullen flashed her lights to alert Defendant to the problem, but he did not
respond by putting his headlights on.6 She made a U-turn and followed Defendant as he
continued to proceed without his headlights on.7
The officer stopped Defendant, told him that he had been stopped because his
headlights were not on, and verified that they were not on by a visual inspection at the front
4 N.T. 12-13.
5 N.T. 13, 15-16.
6 N.T. 13.
7 N.T. 13-14.
of his car.s Defendant insisted that they were on, and as the officer reapproached the front
of the vehicle the lights came on.9 A check of the switch which controlled the headlights
revealed that the headlights were operating properly.~°
Defendant was cited for driving without his headlights on, in violation of Section
4302(a)(1) of the Vehicle Code.~l This statute provides as follows:
The operator of a vehicle upon a highway shall display
the lighted head lamps and other lamps and illuminating devices
required under [the Vehicle Code] ... [b]etween sunset and
sunrise. 12
At trial, Defendant testified that the headlights had been working properly and that
they were in fact on at the time in question. 13 He was also permitted to introduce an affidavit
from a passenger in his car to the effect that the lights were on.TM
At the conclusion of the summary trial, the court expressed its belief that the officer's
8 N.T. 15.
9Id.
10 N.T. 22-23. Defendant had suggested to the officer that perhaps the lights were not
operating property. N.T. 23.
1~ Commonwealth's Exhibit 2.
~2 Act of June 17, 1976, P.L. 162, §1, 75 Pa. C.S. §4302(a)(1).
13 N.T. 15.
14 The Commonwealth stipulated that if the passenger were called to testify his
testimony would be in accordance with the statement. N.T. 35; Defendant's Exhibit 1.
3
testimony was credible and that Defendant had been mistaken.~S Defendant was found guilty
of driving without his headlights on, and sentenced to pay a fine of $25.00.16
Defendant's appeal from the judgment of sentence was filed on December 2, 1998.
DISCUSSION
In the present case, the question of whether Defendant's headlights were on as he
drove on a highway at 1:15 a.m. was a matter of credibility. A resolution as to the credibility
of conflicting testimony does not necessarily involve a finding that a witness has deliberately
falsified; "it is not uncommon for a witness to be innocently mistaken in his recollection of
how something happened?7
The court, in its capacity as trier of fact, found the version of events presented by
Officer Mullen to be credible. This version contained the elements of the offense of driving
without headlights in violation of Section 4302(a)(1) of the Vehicle Code.
For these reasons, it is believed that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict,
and that the judgment of sentence was properly imposed.
Jaime M. Keating, Esq.
Assistant District Attorney
For the Commonwealth
IS N.T. 47.
16 ./d.
17 Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Jury Instructions §4.09 (Rev. 1972).
4
Ronald Haswell-Andrews
P.O. Box 183
Carlisle, PA 17013
Defendant, Pro Se
:rc