Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-489 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH V. COLLEEN MARY McLAUGHLIN OTN: E073387-6 IN THE COURT OF C MMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA 489 CRIMINAL 199 CHARGES: (A) DRIVING UNDER THE INF UENCE (a)(1) & (a (4) (B) CAMLESS DRIVING AFFIANT: TPR. DE NIS T. WILSON ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ZgrLday of; August, 1992, upon c Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion and following the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, t Motion is DENIED as it relates to suppression of upon an unlawful acquisition of blood test results ai time of trial, as to disposition as it relates to ac evidentiary grounds. Defense counsel shall be r bringing the latter matter to the attention of the BY THE COURT, D, Jonathan R. Birbeck, Esq. Senior Assistant District Attorney Samuel W. Milkes, Esq. Assistant Public Defender Attorney for Defendant :rc sideration of hearing, for e Defendant's vidence based I DEFERRED, to iissibility on sponsible for trial judge. J. COMMONWEALTH V. COLLEEN MARY McLAUGHLIN . OTN: E073387-6 IF IN THE COURT OF C MMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 489 CRIMINAL 199 CHARGES: (A) DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (a)(1) & (a (4)' (B) CLESS DRIVING AFFIANT: TPR. D NIS T. WILSON At issue in the present ,driving-under-the-infl ence case, in which violations of Sections 3731(a)(1) and 3731(a)(4) of the Vehicle Code' are charged, is whether a certain blood alcohol test result should be suppressed.' The Defendant's suppression motion sub judice is based on the alleged impropriety of admitting a hospital's analysis of his blood, where the Defendant refused to give consent to administration of a chemical test under Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code.' A hearing was held on the motion on August 11, 1992, before the undersigned judge; Zased upon the evidence submitted at the hearing, the following Findings of Fact, Discussion, and Order of Court are made and entere : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. As a result of a motor vehicle accident occurring on Sunday, January 5, 1992, in Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, Defendant driver was transported to Hershey Medical ' Act of June 17, 1976, P.L. 162, §1, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. §§3731(a)(1), 3731(a)(4) (1992 Supp.). ' Defendant requests, in the alternative, th t the result be excluded in the absence of expert testimony translating the plasma result obtained in the analysis into a whole blool result. This issue will be left to the trial court for resolution at time of trial. 3 Act of June 17, 1976, P.L. 162, §1, as amened, 75 Pa. C.S. §1547 (1992 Supp.). 489 Criminal 1991 Center. 2. Pennsylvania State Trooper Dennis Wilson accident and questioned Defendant at the hospital restigated the rtly after its occurrence. 3. Defendant's eyes were red, bloodshot a d glazed, her breath contained a very strong odor of alcohol and she was combative with hospital personnel. 4. Trooper Wilson had reasonable grounds to believe that the Defendant was driving, operating, or in actual phys cal control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol for purposes of Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code, and probable ca se existed for her arrest on a driving -under -the -influence charge 5. Defendant refused the Trooper's request to submit to a blood alcohol test under Section 1547 of the Vehic a Code. 6. Subsequent to Defendant's refusal, and before leaving the hospital, the Trooper learned that a blood alcohol test had been conducted by the hospital for medical purposes prior to his arrival. 7. The aforesaid test for medical purposes was not done at the direction of, or with the knowledge of, the police. 8. At a later time, the Trooper had the aforesaid test result (.279$) subpoenaed by a district justice for use at the preliminary hearing in this case. 2 489 Criminal 1991 DISCUSSION It appears that the Defendant, prior to t e suppression hearing, was under the impression that the Trooper he d directed the hospital to withdraw blood from the Defendant fter, and in disregard of, her refusal to consent to the to t. Had this impression been correct, the case upon which Defendant relied at the hearing, Commonwealth v. Eisenhart, Pa. , A.2d _ (1972) (No. 133 M.D. Appeal Docket 1990) (filed"rune 2, 1992), would have lent support to her position.° However, the uncontradicted testimony at the hearing was to the offect that the test at issue had been conducted for medical purposes, prior to the officer's arrival, and without his knowledge, request or direction. Under these circumstances, the law as it presently exists does not warrant suppression of the test result. Commonweal th v. Hipp, 380 Pa. Super. 345, 551 A.2d 1086 (1988); Commonwealth v. Hall, 25 D. & C.3d 444 (Clinton Co. 1983); Commonwealth v. Bloom, 69 D. & C.2d 640 (Dauphin Co. 1975). ° In Eisenhart, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a defendant on driving -under -the -influence charges, where a blood test result was admitted into evidence notwithstanding a test refusal by the defendant and subsequent acquisition of the result through a pros ec ution-requested withdrawal of blood by hospital personnel. Commonwealth v. Eisenhart, Pa. , A.2d (No. 133 M.E. Appeal Docket 1990) (filed June 2, 1992). 3 489 Criminal 1991 µ ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2`� day of August, 1992, upon c Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion and following the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, t Motion is DENIED as it relates to suppression of upon an unlawful acquisition of blood test results a time of trial, as to disposition as relates to a4 evidentiary grounds. Defense counsel shall be i bringing the latter matter to the attention of the BY THE COURT, Jonathan R. Birbeck, Esq. Senior Assistant District Attorney Samuel W. Milkes, Esq. Assistant Public Defender Attorney for Defendant :rc 4 s sideration of hearing, for e Defendant's vidence based I DEFERRED, to .issibility on sponsible for trial judge. J.