HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-0347 CRIMINALCOMMONWEALTH
VS.
MARK L. SIMEON
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
01-0347 CRIMINAL
IN RE: NON JURY TRIAL
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On July 13, 2000, the defendant was observed by both a lay witness and police officers
driving in an erratic fashion. In addition to stopping for lengthy periods of time, the improper
driving consisted of the vehicle moving to the left towards oncoming traffic. The police officers
who eventually confronted the defendant saw that his pupils were dilated. Concluding that the
defendant may be under the influence of a controlled substance, he was taken for a blood test.
The evidence in the case further indicates that the defendant's car had been taken to a
mechanic earlier in the day. A note was made by the mechanic indicating that the steering of the
vehicle tended to pull to the right, suggesting that, in order to operate the vehicle, one would
have to overcompensate to the left.
We have reviewed video tapes of the defendant, both at his home and at the booking
center. We are unable to discern the normal signs of intoxication. The defendant's posture and
gait are clearly the result of his back problem and the reason why he was unable to perform field
sobriety tests is rather obvious.
The defendant is in a great deal of pain as the result of a back problem. A stipulation,
filed by the parties, reveals that the various medications which the defendant is taking can cause
significant driving impairment. The same stipulation, however, noted that the amount of drugs
found in the defendant's blood specimen were at or below ranges for effective treatment.
Moreover, a letter authored by Mr. Simeon's doctor was to the effect that the defendant had not
been given any driving restrictions because of the medications he was taking. This letter also
disclosed some questions concerning the accuracy of the lab report.
As we have noted, the defendant's driving was erratic. His operation of his motor vehicle
endangered the traveling public and he will be found guilty of reckless driving. The testimony of
witnesses was that he did not maintain his vehicle on the proper side of the roadway and he will
be found guilty of count II, limitations on driving on left side. With regard to the count of
driving under the influence, however, our review of the evidence has left us with as many
questions as we have answers and we are unable to arrive at the conclusion that the defendant is
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of April, 2002, on a count of Reckless Driving, we
find the defendant GUILTY as charged. Sentence of the court is that the defendant pay the costs
of prosecution, an EMS assessment of$10.00, a CAT fund surcharge of $30.00 and a fine of
$200.00.
On a count of Limitations on Driving on Left Side of Roadway, we find the defendant
GUILTY as charged. Sentence of the court is that the defendant pay the costs of prosecution, an
EMS assessment of$10.00, a CAT fund surcharge of $40.00 and a fine of $25.00.
On a count of Driving under the Influence, we find the defendant NOT GUILTY.
BY THE COURT,
Kevin A. Hess, J.
Michael Mervine, Esquire
Assistant District Attorney
Jessica Rhoades, Esquire
Assistant Public Defender
:rlm