HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-2123 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH
V®
WILLIAM H. TRITT, JR.
OTN: E200556-6
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 95-2123 CRIMINAL TERM
CHARGE: DRIVING UNDER
THE INFLUENCE
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925
Oler, J., December 18, 1996.
In this criminal case involving a charge of driving under the
influence of a controlled substance, Defendant has appealed to the
Superior Court from the judgment of sentence following a bench
trial and guilty verdict. The basis for the appeal is that "[t]he
evidence was not sufficient to find beyond a reasonable doubt that
Defendant was under the influence of marijuana to a degree that
rendered him incapable of safe driving."~
This opinion in support of the judgment of sentence is written
pursuant to P~nnsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On Saturday, April 29, 1995, at approximately 10:15 p.m., a
licensed practical nurse from Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, named
Luanne VanScyoc was driving north toward Carlisle, Pennsylvania,
where she worked, on a two-lane highway known as the Walnut Bottom
Road.2 Ms. VanScyoc noticed that the vehicle directly in front of
her was weaving and swerving.3
~ Defendant's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on
Appeal, filed December 10, 1996.
N.T. 6-8, 10, Trial,
__).
October 7, 1996
(hereinafter N.T.
3 N.T. 7-8, 10, 14, 18.
NO. 95-2123 CRIMINAL TERM
After observing this erratic driving for a distance of about
a half mile,4 Ms. VanScyoc utilized a two-way radio in her car to
notify her husband, Sergeant Robert VanScyoc of the Mid Cumberland
Valley Regional Police Department, of the matter.5 She continued
to keep Sergeant VanScyoc advised of her location as she followed
the vehicle toward Carlisle.~
Over the course of several miles,? Ms. VanScyoc observed the
vehicle, which was traveling at 45-50 miles per hour,8 cross the
center line at least four times, once on the crest of a hill, and
travel onto the berm of the highway at least four times.9 Her
testimony included these descriptions:
Q When you say he was going to the
left or the right, how much of his car was
goih~ over these lines in the other direction,
if you can recall?
A If I can recall, probably between a
quarter and a half of the vehicle was either
over the center line or off the berm of the
road. ~0
N.T. 16.
N.T. 9.
Id.
N.T. 10, 13-14, 17, 66.
N.T. 14.
N.T. 18.
N.T. 10.
2
NO. 95-2123 CRIMINAL TERM
Q What happened on [the] hill?
A Well, we were just going down the
road, and we were approaching the crest of the
hill, and I observed the vehicle, and he was
over the center line. His car was at least
halfway over that center line. The car was
like straddling the center line.
Q Is this a hill that you could see
what was on the other side or was there a
slight - or was there a sight blockage?
A It was a steep hill. You couldn't --
you had to stay on your side of the road. If
there would have been an oncoming car --~
The vehicle which Ms. VanScyoc reported and was following was
stopped by police at 10:28 p.m. on the Walnut Bottom Road at the
edge of Carlisle.~2 Defendant was the driver.~3
Defendant's eyes were reddish and watery; he presented "a
general over ~11 appearance that he may have been intoxicated,"
according to a police witness.~4 When the vehicle was stopped,
neither Ms. VanScyoc nor the police were aware that Defendant, who
11
12
14
N.T. 41, 44.
N.T. 11.
N.T. 36-37, 40.
N.T. 37, 67.
N.T. 37 (testimony of Sergeant Robert VanScyoc); see also
3
NO. 95-2123 CRIMINAL TERM
had had two fatal accidents in the past,~5 was the driver.~6
Defendant was placed under arrest for driving under the
influence by a Carlisle Borough police officer.~7 A sample of his
blood was drawn at 11:00 p.m.~8
An analysis of the sample revealed the presence of sixteen
nanograms of ll_Nor-delta-9-tetrahydroc~nnabinol-9-carboxylic acid
(THC acid) per milliliter, and five nanograms of ll-Nor-delta-9-
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) per milliliter.~9 The latter substance
is the principal active ingredient of marijuana-2° No measurable
part of alcohol was found in the sample.2~
According to toxicologist Theodore S. Siek, a laboratory
director in Feasterville, Pennsylvania,22 such a concentration of
THC is "high ... relative to all the other ones we find" and "quite
N.T. 63.
N.T. 12, 37.
The vehicle was not registered in-Defendant's name.
37, 62.
17
18
19
20
21
N.T. 41.
Id.
N.T. 25; Commonwealth's Exhibit 1.
N.T. 25.
N.T. 32.
N.T. 19.
The former substance is a metabolite.
4
N.T. 26.
NO. 95-2123 CRIMINAL TERM
unusual."23 In terms of the effect of this amount of THC in the
blood, Dr. Siek testified as follows:
Q What would be the effect of having
this concentration of THC in a person's
system? What would be the effects on that
person?
A Well, the main thing would be the
loss of mental sharpness and the tendency to
drift off into a dreamlike state and to not be
able to pay attention to what you're doing and
to disregard what's going on about you,
because you're kind of in your own little
world, and in this state you don't care that
much what's going on. So it does impair your
tracking ability. It impairs your ability to
keep focused on the job of driving.
Q What effect would this level have on
motor skill coordination?
A Well, it would be impaired, and the
main thing that I believe in this situation is
that your ability to concentrate on your job
is just diminished very substantially-24
Toxicologist G. Thomas Passananti of the Hershey Medical
Center25 testified that a person having the aforesaid concentration
of THC in his blood "would have the signs of overt drunkenness-"26
Dr. Passananti testified as follows:
... Marijuana has the same effect on the
human body, the central nervous system, that
alcohol has, judgment, perception, reaction
N.T. 27.
N.T. 28-29.
N.T. 44-46.
N.T. 49.
5
NO. 95-2123 CRIMINAL TERM
time, visual acuity, tracking. It impairs
tracking twice the amount that alcohol does,
and, of course, it has to do -- in other words,
the processes of retrieval and integration of
information, okay, are always obliterated with
marijuana. Marijuana is a soporific. It
induces central nervous system depression and
sleep.
Q Would a person who has this level be
falling down?
A No, he would not necessarily be
falling down, but he certainly would be
impaired with regard to the safe operation of
a motor vehicle. Herbert Moskowitz at the
University of California made some statements
that people are impaired after smoking one
marijuana cigarette, and even if marijuana is
not found in the blood, that does not mean
that marijuana was not the cause of that
accident.27
On the subject of dissipation of THC from the blood, Dr.
Passananti tewtified as follows:
Q Now what is the dissipation rate of
marijuana?
A Marijuana dissipates very, very
quickly. In other words, it's sequestered
into the fat. I'll give you a pharmacological
term here. It has apparent volume of
distribution of 10 liters per kilogram, which
means it leaves the blood immediately, as Dr.
$iek said, and enters the brain and spinal
column. Okay. Now what happens is this:
As Dr. Siek said, the marijuana
spikes very, very rapidly. Before you finish
smoking a marijuana cigarette, the blood level
is already falling. And after two or three
hours, it's almost immeasurable. The five
nanograms per milliliter that you mentioned
27 N.T. 50.
6
NO. 95-2123 CRIMINAL TERM
indicates recent smoking. And remember, half
hour prior to the five nanograms, his blood
alcohol - his blood marijuana level was much
higher.2"
One of the signs of a high dose of marijuana, according to Dr.
Passananti, is "watering of the eyes.''29 The court, in its capacity
as trier of fact, found the testimony of Dr. Siek and Dr~
Passananti to be credible.
Defendant presented the testimony of a passenger in his
vehicle on the night in question, who responded, "Not to my
recollection," to a question as to whether Defendant had smoked
anything that he believed might have been marijuana.TM The
passenger attributed the vehicle's deviations in course to the fact
that "it had a bent wheel on it, and the outer tire rod was bent.''3~
There was no Suggestion that the witness was a mechanic, however,
nor was he apparently familiar enough with the car to know the last
name of its owner.32
N.T. 50-51.
N.T. 52.
N.T. 58.
N.T. 59.
N.T. 62.
7
NO. 95-2123 CRIMINAL TERM
Defendant testified and stated that no marijuana had been
smoked "in the car.''33 His most recent use of marijuana, he stated,
had been two or three days before.34
Defendant conceded that the vehicle he was driving "pulled off
the road a few times," although not to the degree suggested by Ms.
VanScyoc.3s He attributed the vehicle's lateral motions to a right,
front bent tie rod, which caused the vehicle to "pull both ways.''36
No physical evidence was presented on this subject.
Based upon the evidence presented, 'the court found Defendant
guilty of driving under the influence of a controlled substance
(marijuana) in violation of Section 3731(a)(2) of the Vehicle
Code.~7 On November 12, 1996, Defendant was sentenced to undergo
a period of imprisonment of not less than 30 days nor more than 24
months and to pay a fine of $300.00, said prison sentence to run
consecutive
involuntary
incident.~B
to state sentences for vehicular homicide and
manslaughter arising out of a previous driving
N.T. 66-67.
N.T. 68.
N.T. 70.
Id.
N.T. 74-75; Order of Court, October 7, 1996.
Order of Court, November 12, 1996; see N.T. 77.
8
NO. 95-2123 CRIMINAL TERM
DISCUSSION
"The test of the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal
case 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,
Pa. Super. , , 672 A.2d 1353, 1354 (1996), quoting
Commonwealth v. Carter, 329 Pa. Super. 490, 495-96, 478 A.2d 1286,
1288 (1984). "[I]t is within the province of the fact finder to
dete~,~ne the weight to be given to the testimony and to believe
all, part, or none of the evidence." Commonwealth v. Baskerville,
Pa. Super.. , , A.2d , 1996 WL 437648 (1996).
The crime of operating a vehicle while under the influence of
a controlled substance requires that the Commonwealth prove two
elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that defendant was driving,
operating, or in actual physical control of a vehicle, and (2) that
at that time he was under the influence of a controlled substance
to a degree which rendered him incapable of safe driving. Act of
June 17, 1976, P.L. 162, §1, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. §3731(a)(2);
cf. Commonwealth v. Byers, 437 Pa. Super. 502, 505, 650 A.2d 468,
469 (1994); Commonwealth v. Morris, 28 Pa. D. & C.3d 83, 85
(Delaware Co. 1982).
NO. 95-2123 CRIMINAL TERM
In the present case, it is not disputed that Defendant was
driving a vehicle. Marijuana (and any substance containing
tetrahydracannabinols) is a controlled substance. Act of April 14,
1972, P.L. 233, §4(1)(iii)(16), (iv), as amended, 35 P.S. §780-
104(1)(iii)(16), (iv).
The erratic and dangerous driving of Defendant over a course
of several miles, the presence of an unusually high level of THC in
a sample of his blood drawn 32 minutes after the vehicle stop, his
appearance at thescene, and expert testimony as to the anticipated
effects of such a drug concentration as well as the rapid
dissipation rate associated with marijuana, combined with the
absence of a credible alternative explanation for Defendant's
operating cond. uct,39 tended to support a reasonable conclusion that
Defendant was under the influence of the controlled substance to a
degree that rendered him incapable of safe driving at the time he
was driving. For these reasons it is believed that the evidence was
sufficient to sustain the verdict, and that the judgment of
sentence was properly entered.
Thomas A. Placey, Esq.
Assistant District Attorney
H. Anthony Adams, Esq.
Assistant Public Defender
39 In this regard, the court in its capacity as factfinder did
not find plausible Defendant's contention that mechanical problems
were responsible for the vehicle's erratic operation.
10