HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-SA-32-2009
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. : CHARGE: APPEAL FROM SUMMARY -
: CARELESS DRIVING
:
WAYNE ROY HALL : CP-21-SA-0032-2009
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925
OLER, J., May 19, 2009.
In this summary appeal case, Defendant has filed an appeal from a
1
judgment of sentence for careless driving. The sole issue, as expressed in
Defendant’s statement of errors complained of on appeal, is as follows:
Did the finder of fact err in finding that there was sufficient evidence
to prove the requisite elements of Careless Driving, where the evidence
presented at trial was the Commonwealth’s witness’ testimony that she
perceived Defendant’s vehicle as too close and crossing into her lane;
requiring her to move her vehicle slightly off the roadway in a purely
2
proactive manner.
This opinion in support of the judgment of sentence is written pursuant to
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
As the result of an incident occurring on Interstate Route 81 in Cumberland
3
County, Pennsylvania, Defendant was cited for Careless Driving. Following his
appeal from summary conviction, a de novo trial on the charge was held by the
undersigned judge.
At the de novo trial, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of a
motorist named Anita K. Thomas and the affiant in the case, Pennsylvania State
Trooper John Boardman. Defendant presented the testimony of himself.
1
Defendant’s Notice of Appeal, filed April 15, 2009.
2
Defendant’s Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed May 6, 2009.
3
Traffic Citation R0226602-5, filed November 10, 2008.
The testimony presented by the Commonwealth, which the court found
4
credible, may be summarized as follows: On Thursday, November 6, 2008, at
567
about 10:30 a.m. Anita K. Thomas was driving a car with a passenger
89
northbound in the left passing lane on Interstate Route 81 between Shippensburg
1011
and Carlisle, in Southampton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
12
The day was clear and sunny. Notwithstanding that Ms. Thomas was traveling at
13
or in excess of the speed limit, an automobile immediately behind her and
Defendant’s tractor trailer immediately behind that vehicle were following too
1415
closely, and Ms. Thomas lightly tapped her brakes to signal her concern.
16
Defendant redirected his tractor trailer into the right lane, and in the
17
process of passing Ms. Thomas on the right at a speed of 70-75 miles-per-hour
18
gave her the finger and moved his vehicle to the left to such an extent that she
19
was forced to partially leave her lane of travel to avoid a collision. In this
avoidance maneuver, the left wheels of Ms. Thomas’s car crossed the left fog line
of the northbound lane and then crossed the rumble strip to the further left
4
N.T. 4, 11, Trial, March 31, 2009 (hereinafter N.T. __).
5
N.T. 4, 12.
6
N.T. 5.
7
N.T. 5.
8
N.T. 9.
9
N.T. 4.
10
N.T. 4, 10.
11
N.T. 4, 12.
12
N.T. 12.
13
N.T. 6.
14
N.T. 4.
15
N.T. 4.
16
N.T. 4.
17
N.T. 7
18
N.T. 5.
19
N.T. 4.
2
20
thereof. No medial barrier existed at this point of the highway, and the
21
northbound and southbound lanes were separated by a swale.
2223
Shortly after the incident, in response to a call from Ms. Thomas,
Pennsylvania State Trooper John Boardman met Ms. Thomas on the side of the
24
roadway and found her to be visibly shaken by the experience. Following an
25
investigation, he cited Defendant for careless driving.
Defendant, testifying in his own defense, conceded that he had been the
driver of the 80,000-pound tractor trailer loaded with coal that passed Ms. Thomas
26
during the incident in question and that he had “flipped them off” as he went
27
by. He stated that prior to his passing her, Ms. Thomas had twice given the
28
vehicles behind her a “brake check,” that she was delaying traffic in the
2930
“hammer lane,” and that she accelerated when he was passing her on the right.
31
He denied that he had “run anybody off the road” and maintained that the
32
passenger in Ms. Thomas’s vehicle had also flipped him off.
20
N.T. 4-5, 9.
21
N.T. 12. As described by the state trooper, “she would have fell into a pit at that point.” N.T.
12.
22
N.T. 11, 12.
23
See N.T. 9.
24
N.T. 11.
25
N.T. 13; Traffic Citation R0226602-5, filed November 10, 2008. .
26
N.T. 19-21.
27
N.T. 18.
28
N.T. 18-19.
29
N.T. 16-17.
30
N.T. 18.
31
N.T. 18.
32
N.T. 18.
3
At the conclusion of the de novo trial, the court found Defendant guilty of
33
careless driving and imposed the statutory fine of $25.00. From the judgment of
34
sentence, Defendant filed an appeal on April 15, 2009.
DISCUSSION
Statement of law. On a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a
criminal case, the proper test is “whether, viewing the evidence admitted at trial in
the 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 [crime] charged beyond a reasonable
doubt.” Commonwealth v. Jones, 449 Pa. Super. 58, 61, 672 A.2d 1353, 1354
(1996), quoting Commonwealth v. Carter, 329 Pa. Super. 490, 495-96, 478 A.2d
1286, 1288 (1984). A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence does not
implicate the weight of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Butler, 2004 PA Super
294, ¶9, 856 A.2d 131, 135, citing Commonwealth v. Cassidy, 447 Pa. Super. 192,
195, 668 A.2d 1143, 1144 (1995).
Furthermore, the trier-of-fact in a criminal case is “free to believe all, part
or none of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Petaccio, 2000 PA Super 384, ¶5, 764
A.2d 582, 585, quoting Commonwealth v. Griscavage, 512 Pa. 540, 543, 517 A.2d
1256, 1257 (1986). This prerogative applies to expert, as well as lay, testimony.
See Commonwealth v. Minerd, 562 Pa. 46, 753 A.2d 225 (2000).
Under Section 3714(a) of the Vehicle Code, “any person who drives a
vehicle in careless disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of
careless driving, a summary offense.” Act of June 17, 1976, P.L. 162, §1, as
amended, 75 Pa. C.S. §3714(a).
Application of law to facts. In the present case, the court, in its capacity as
trier-of-fact, found the testimony of Ms. Thomas and Trooper Boardman to be
33
Order of Court, March 31, 2009.
34
Defendant’s Notice of Appeal, filed April 15, 2009.
4
credible and did not find credible the contention of Defendant that he had “not run
anybody off the road.” In the court’s view, the Commonwealth’s evidence,
including reasonable inferences deducible therefrom, established beyond a
reasonable doubt that Defendant, while driving an 80,000-pound tractor trailer,
became angry at the manner in which a car ahead of him was being operated,
proceeded to pass the car on the right at a speed of 70-75 miles-per-hour,
attempted during the pass to intimidate the driver of the car by maneuvering his
truck into her lane to the extent that she was forced to move her vehicle partially
out of her lane to the left to avoid a collision, and did so at a location where the
two occupants of the car were at risk of descending at high speed into a swale
between the opposing directions of travel. Such conduct on the part of Defendant
more than qualified, in the court’s view, as driving “in careless disregard for the
safety of persons.”
BY THE COURT,
_________________
J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.
Office of the District Attorney
Michael O. Palermo, Jr., Esq.
Attorney for Defendant
Court Administrator
5