Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-2324-2004 COMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. JERRY LEE OTT NO. CP-21-CRIMINAL 2324 - 2004 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. RA.P. 1925 Guido, J., October , 2005 On June 15,2005, after a bench trial, the defendant was convicted of numerous charges arising out of an incident that occurred at the picnic grounds of the Minnequa Club in western Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. After sentence the defendant filed this timely appeal. The only issue raised on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions for driving under the influence 1 and driving under suspension2. Specifically defendant contends that there was no evidence that he drove his vehicle on a trafficway? On August 14,2004 Minnequa Club member Samuel Shaffer rented the picnic grounds for a pig roast.4 The event was open to the public.5 While the victim and her boyfriend had no connection to the Minnequa Club, they attended the pig roast along with 100 to 150 other people.6 Access to the Minnequa Club picnic grounds is by way of a dirt road connecting to Strohm Road in Southampton Township, Cumberland County? It provides access 1 75 Pa. C.S.A. ~ 3802 (a) (1). 275 Pa. C.S.A. ~ 1543 (b). 3 See Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. 4 Trial Transcript, p. 68. 5 As Mr. Shaffer said, "whoever wanted to come up, come up, enjoy themselves, have a good time, eat and drink." Trial Transcript, p. 68. 6 Trial Transcript, p. 36. 7 Trial Transcript, p. 51. CP-21-CRIMINAL 2324 - 2004 from Strohm Road to several homes in addition to the picnic grounds.8 However, the grounds are at the very end of that road.9 The dirt road leads through the woods to a gate at the entrance of the picnic grounds.10 A sign posted on the gate reads "DANGER DO NOT ENTER: AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONL y"l1 However, on the day of the pig roast the gate was open and non-members as well as members were welcome. 12 The dirt road continues through the gate onto the grounds.13 Once on the grounds, vehicles disbursed from the dirt road and parked all over the grassy areas. 14 The victim's Suburban, along with the defendant's Ford truck and several other cars were parked on a grassy area near the picnic pavilion. As the defendant pulled out from his parking spot, he gunned his truck, fish-tailed and sideswiped the victim's Suburban. 15 The victim ran after the truck, which stopped near the woods at the entrance gate. She jumped onto the running board to confront the defendant. 16 The defendant grabbed her shirt and took off dragging her alongside the vehicle for quite some distance. 17 He eventually dropped her and drove off onto the access road.18 After going through the gate, the defendant left the grounds and went directly to his garage.19 The garage is located less than one half mile 8 Trial Transcript, p. 71. 9 Trial Transcript, p. 71. 10 See Defendant's Exhibit 3. 11 See Defendant's Exhibit 1. 12 Trial Transcript, p. 5, 36, 68. 13 See Defendant's Exhibit 3. 14 Trial Transcript, p. 25. 15 Trial Transcript, p. 22. 16 Trial Transcript, p. 9. 17 Trial Transcript, p. 9, 10. 18 Trial Transcript, p. 33, 34, 45, 81. 19 Trial Transcript, p. 92, 111. 2 CP-21-CRIMINAL 2324 - 2004 from the camp grounds on Walnut Dale Road.20 The defendant arrived at his garage and called the police within minutes after having left the picnic grounds.21 The defendant contends that we "erred in finding (him) guilty of all charges relating to operating motor vehicles because the Commonwealth offered no proof so as to establish. . . that the offenses. . . took place on a trafficway". 22 We disagree.23 We agree that the operation of the truck upon a highway or trafficway is a material element of the motor vehicle offenses charged in the instant case.24 However, we were convinced that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence from which we could infer beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant drove his vehicle from the picnic grounds to his garage on Walnut Dale Road. He was driving his truck when he left the grounds and arrived at the Walnut Dale Road location within two minutes. We could (and did) logically conclude that he had to drive upon public roads, including Strohm Road and Walnut Dale Road, to get there. Furthermore, we were satisfied that both the picnic grounds and the dirt road accessing them were trafficways. The Vehicle code defines "trafficway" as follows: "Trafficway." The entire width between property lines or other boundary lines of every way or place of which any part is open to the public for purposes of vehicular travel as a matter of right or custom. 75 Pa. C.S.A. S 102. Our appellate courts have held that "a one lane dirt road which was on private property and dead ended" met the definition of trafficway. Commonwealth v. 20 Trial Transcript, p. 54. 21 Trial Transcript, pp. 51, 54. 22 See "Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal." 23 Since defendant does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to the other elements of the offenses, we have limited our recitation of the facts to those that are relevant to the issue in dispute. 24 Section 3101 (b) of the Vehicle Code provides as follows: The provisions. . . Subchapter B. of Chapter 37 (relating to serious traffic offenses) and Chapter 38 (relating to driving after imbibing alcohol or utilizing drugs) shall apply upon highways and traffic ways throughout this Commonwealth. 75 Pa. C.S.A. ~ 3101 (b). While driving under suspension is not covered in the above, the terms of the statute require the offense to be on a "highway" or "trafficway". 3 CP-21-CRIMINAL 2324 - 2004 Baughman, 357 Pa.Super. 535, 516 A.2d 390,391 (Pa.Super. 1986). It relied upon "tire tracks on the dirt from cars occasionally traveling on the surface way" as well as testimony that the lane was used occasionally by members of the public. 516 A.2d at 1391. In the instant case the exhibits clearly show tire tracks leading from the open gate onto the grassy area of the picnic grounds.25 Furthermore, the testimony in the instant case established that the entire picnic grounds were used as a parking lot for the pig roast. There were between 100 and 150 people, both members of the club and the general public, in attendance. This case is not unlike Commonwealth v. Cameron, 668 A.2d 1163 (Pa.Super. 1995). In that case, the Superior Court held that a restricted parking lot was a trafficway. As it stated: We conclude that tenants, employees, and other who have the advantage of a restricted parking facility still deserve and expect to be protected from incidents involving serious traffic offenses. Thus, the public use component of Section 102 can be satisfied even where access to a parking lot is restricted, but where there are a sufficient number of users, such as presented in the matter before us. Therefore, we hold that public use component of Section 102 can be satisfied in a restricted parking lot situation if the jury concludes that a sufficient number of lot users are present. 668 A.2d 1163 at 1164. In the instant case, we were satisfied that a sufficient number of users existed such that the entire picnic grounds were a "trafficway" because it was "open to the public for purposes of vehicular travel" on the day in question.26 Therefore, we found the defendant guilty of the motor vehicle offenses with which he was charged. 25 See Defendant's Exhibit 3. 2675 Pa. C.S.A. ~ 102. 4 CP-21-CRIMINAL 2324 - 2004 DATE Edward E. Guido, J. Michelle Sibert, Esquire For the Commonwealth Gregory Abeln, Esquire F or the Defendant :sld 5