HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-SA-0000156 –2012
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
V. : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CURTIS B. ARCHER : CP-21-SA-0156 – 2012
:
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925
Guido, J., May , 2013
After a hearing on December 11, 2012, we found the defendant guilty of driving under
1
suspension D.U.I. related in violation of Section 1543 (b) (1) of the Vehicle Code. We
2
sentenced him to the mandatory minimum sentence of 60 days incarceration and a $500 fine.
He has filed this appeal in which he alleges that we erred in not accepting his justification
defense.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On Monday, July 23, 2012, at 1:45 p.m. Officer Brandon Stolley of the Hampden
Township Police Department observed a Chevy Prism improperly passing vehicles by travelling
on the right shoulder of the Carlisle Pike. The officer effectuated a traffic stop. The vehicle was
being driven by the defendant. His wife and five week old son were in the back seat.
When asked for his driver’s license the defendant conceded that it was under
3
suspension for DUI related offenses. The defendant told the officer that he was driving
because of an emergency involving his infant child. Officer Stolley offered to contact the EMS
1
75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1543 (b) (1).
2
We delayed his report date until after the holidays. He remains free on non-monetary bail pending resolution of
this appeal.
3
His license had been suspended through June 11, 2013, as a result of a driving under the influence charge and a
chemical test refusal which occurred in September 2011. See Commonwealth Exhibit 1.
to transport the child to the hospital. The defendant refused, indicating that they were on their
way home from the doctor’s office.
The defendant testified that the child had been sick since shortly after his birth on June
14, 2012. He had been taking Zantac for several weeks prior to this incident. On the weekend
prior to the traffic stop the child cried incessantly. The defendant explained the situation to the
child’s pediatrician and was told to bring the child to the office. He was seen by the pediatrician
on Monday, July 23, 2012, at 12:53 p.m. The chief complaint was “screaming in pain all
4
weekend.” The pediatrician assessed the child as having “gird and normal neurodevelopment
5
crying.” The doctor increased the child’s Zantac and added Prevacid.
DISCUSSION
The defendant did not dispute that he violated Section 1543 (b) (1) of the Vehicle Code.
He argued that he was justified in violating the law because of the emergency situation
involving his son. However, we were convinced that his actions were not justified under the
circumstances of this case.
We did not believe that the defendant saw himself as being faced with an emergency
situation. The child had been crying all weekend. However, the defendant did not choose to
drive until around noon on Monday. At some point he consulted with the child’s pediatrician.
He was not advised to go to the emergency room, but was told to come to the office. When
4
See Defendant’s Exhibit 1.
5
See Defendant’s Exhibit 1.
2
asked if he made any attempts to get someone else to transport the child to the doctor, he
testified as follows:
I usually have - - my brother would usually take us, but this came up as a type of
situation where I couldn’t get ahold of him. The baby was looking pale and
white. The baby didn’t look good to me. He is my only child, and he didn’t look
6
good. He just didn’t look good.
We did not find that testimony to be credible, especially in light of the fact that the
“emergency” had been going on all weekend. We also note that if he truly believed that an
“emergency” situation existed he could have had the child transported by ambulance to the
emergency room.
While we sympathized with the defendant’s concern for his child, we could not in good
conscience find that his actions were justified under the law. Quite the contrary, we were
satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that his decision to drive to and from the doctor’s office
was based upon convenience rather than a belief that his child was in any real danger.
Therefore, we found him guilty.
_______________________ ___________________________________
DATE Edward E. Guido, J.
Jonathan R. Birbeck, Esquire
For the Commonwealth
Arla M. Waller, Esquire
For the Defendant
6
Transcript of Proceedings, December 11, 2012, p. 14.
3
4