Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-2555 CRIMINALCOMMONWEALTH V. STEPHEN E. SEYMORE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2000-2555 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925 Guido, J., September ,2001 The defendant was convicted by a jury of driving under the influence in violation of Section 373 l(a)(1) of the Vehicle Code.1 He has filed a timely appeal from our denial of his post sentence motions. While he raises several allegations of error on appeal, this opinion will deal only with his claims that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict or, in the alternative, that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.2 DISCUSSION Sufficiency of Evidence. The defendant filed a motion in arrest of judgment in which he claimed that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the verdict. We denied that motion. The evidence established that the defendant was driving his Ford Explorer southbound on U.S. Route 15 in Upper Allen Township.3 Officer McNair of the Upper Allen Township Police Department followed his vehicle and noticed it "weaving back ~ 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3731(a)(1). : Since we presided over the trial in this matter, it is appropriate for us to address those issues. The other allegations of error deal with the denial of defendant's pretrial motions. Those matters were handled by the Honorable J. Wesley Oler. The reasons for his rulings are addressed in a separate opinion. 3 Trial Transcript, p. 19. NO. 2000-2555 CRIMINAL TERM and forth within its lane of traffic.''4 On two occasions, he saw it swerve onto the right berm and quickly come back onto the road.5 After the Explorer crossed onto the berm a 6 second time, the officer effectuated a traffic stop. Officer McNair asked the defendant if there was any reason for his erratic driving. The defendant indicated that he had no explanation.? The officer noticed that the defendant's eyes were red, glassy and watery.8 He also noticed a strong odor of alcohol coming from his breath.9 At the request of the officer, the defendant agreed to perform the standard field sobriety tests, which he failed, l0 Based upon his training and experience, as well as his observations, Officer McNair opined that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered him incapable of safe driving. ~ The defendant was then taken to the central booking center for processing. The processing agent also noticed a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. ~2 The defendant performed a second set of field sobriety tests, which he failed. ~3 He also submitted to a breath test which showed a BAC of. 111%.TM Evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict if "the evidence, and all reasonable inferences deducible from that, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth Trial Transcript, p. 20. Trial Transcript, pp. 20, 41. Trial Transcript, pp. 20, 21. Trial Transcript, p. 22. Trial Transcript, p. 23. ]d. The defendant admitted to having had the standard two drinks consumed by all D.U.I. defendants. l0 Trial Transcript, pp. 26 - 31. il Trial Transcript, p. 32. 12 Trial Transcript, p. 84. 13 Trial Transcript, pp. 89 - 91. ~4 Trial Transcript, p 86. It should be noted that the jury found the defendant not guilty of violating 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3731(a)(4). 2 NO. 2000-2555 CRIMINAL TERM as verdict winner, are sufficient to establish all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Bridges, 563 Pa. 1,757 A.2d 859, 864 (2000). The elements of the offense for which the defendant was convicted are as follows: § 3731. Driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance (a) Offense defined. - A person shall not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle in any of the following circumstances: (1) While under the influence of alcohol to a degree which renders the person incapable of safe driving. 75 Pa. C.S.A. {} 373 l(a)(1). In interpreting the above section of the Vehicle Code, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held: The statute does not require that a person be drunk, or intoxicated, or unable to drive his automobile safely in traffic, but merely that the Commonwealth prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was operating his automobile under the influence of intoxicating liquor... The statutory expression "under the influence of intoxicating liquor" includes not only all the well known and easily recognized conditions and degrees of intoxication, but also any mental or physical condition which is the result of drinking alcoholic beverages and (a) which makes one unfit to drive an automobile, or (b) which substantially impairs his judgment, or clearness of intellect, or any of the normal faculties essential to the safe operation of an automobile. Commonwealth v. Griscavage, 512 Pa. 540 544-45, 517 A.2d 1256, 1258 (1986). Applying the above standard to the case at bar, we were satisfied that the evidence was clearly sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had operated his motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered him incapable of safe driving. Therefore, we denied his motion in arrest of judgment. NO. 2000-2555 CRIMINAL TERM New Trial. The defendant also filed a motion requesting a new trial on the basis that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The standard to be applied in evaluating a "weight of the evidence" claim is clear. "The trial court, in the exercise of its discretion, may award a new trial on the basis that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence if the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice." Commonwealth v. Gibson, 553 Pa. 648, 720 A.2d 473,480 (1998). After having heard the evidence at trial, and having thoroughly reviewed the record thereafter, we can unequivocally state that our "sense of justice" was not shocked by the verdict. Therefore, we denied the defendant's motion for a new trial. DATE Edward E. Guido, J. District Attorney Patrick F. Lauer, Jr., Esquire For the Defendant :sld 4