Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-SA-235-2009 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : : RONALD R. SWEGER, JR. : CP-21-SA-0235-2009 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925 Masland, J., August 5, 2010:-- The defendant has appealed to the Superior Court from our order entered on March 30, 2010 in which he was found guilty of the summary offense of public 1 drunkenness. In the defendant’s notice of appeal, in addition to his objection to our findings, he alleges numerous errors before the Magisterial District Judge. As this was an appeal de novo, we need only address those matters that concern our decision. The defendant’s primary “error” complained of on appeal deals with his insistence that the location at which he was arrested was not within Cumberland County, but rather was in Perry County. The defendant also claims that the arresting police officers committed perjury by stating that he had “repeatedly tried to Walk away and did Not Cooperate [sic].” As will be made clear below, the defendant is the only one acting in error. 1 “A person is guilty of a summary offense if he appears in any public place manifestly under the influence of alcohol . . . to the degree that he may endanger himself or other persons or property, or annoy other persons in his vicinity.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 5505. CP-21-SA-0235-2009 The court heard from an independent witness, Clarence Hess, regarding Mr. Sweger’s state of drunkenness and the fact that Mr. Sweger was, in the least, a danger to himself. Mr. Hess was a passing motorist who, not unlike the Good Samaritan, stopped to give aid to the defendant after observing him lying on the side of Route 11/15. The court found Mr. Hess’ testimony abundantly credible in his description of the defendant “walking staggerly [sic]. I thought you were drunk. You scared me because I thought if you’re walking like that somebody could hit you.” (N.T. 11). Three officers, two from East Pennsboro Township in Cumberland County and one from the Marysville Borough Police Department in Perry County, also credibly testified about the defendant’s drunken behavior and the fact that the arrest occurred in Cumberland County (N.T. 17, 23, 29, 38, 47 and 51). Additionally, the court viewed the videotape of the events on the night in question which unequivocally corroborated the testimony of the Commonwealth witnesses – the defendant was in a “public place manifestly under the influence of alcohol,” 18 Pa.C.S. § 5505, and he was in Cumberland County. Interestingly, the defendant acknowledged in his closing argument that he was arrested in Cumberland County (N.T. 56-57), but it appears that because his stupor started in Perry County, he believes he should have been found not guilty. We suggest that the following recitation of our findings of fact at the conclusion of the hearing will provide this honorable court with sufficient justification for our verdict: -2- CP-21-SA-0235-2009 I will make the following brief findings of fact: First of all, that Mr. Hess stopped his vehicle in Cumberland County in an area in close proximity to where he first saw you at that time, that he observed you to be staggering, to possibly be sleeping but in a drunken state. That’s one witness. That’s not just all of them. Secondly, that the entire time that I observed you on the videotape, you were in fact in Cumberland County. Third, all the cars were in Cumberland County, all the officers, all the activity took place in Cumberland County. And as Miss Zaleski has just said, there was an officer from Perry County who was on the scene. And if he really thought you were in Perry County, he would have taken care of that right then and there. So I find beyond a shadow of the doubt that you were in Cumberland County. I also did not observe any tackling or any abusive behavior by the police officers on the scene. The time that [Sergeant Spencer] was kneeling over you, he was not holding you down. He was just kneeling beside you. Based on my observation of you walking along a very dangerous roadway and very dangerous conditions, I find beyond a reasonable doubt that you have been proven guilty of the charge of public drunkenness. (N.T. 58, 59). Lest there be any question, the credible testimony of the witnesses and the videotaped evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was manifestly under the influence of alcohol and was undeniably in Cumberland County. By the Court, (Date) Albert H. Masland, J. -3- CP-21-SA-0235-2009 Julianne Katherine Zaleski, Certified Legal Intern John C. Dailey, Esquire For the Commonwealth Ronald R. Sweger, Jr., Pro se 604 Wertzville Road Enola, PA 17025 :sal -4-