Com. v. Bayler, Z.
3173 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 14, 2016Background
- Zachary Bayler was tried non-jury and convicted of DUI (general impairment), 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1), and speeding after a July 2015 traffic stop.
- Officer Adams observed Bayler speeding (approximately double the limit) and swerving twice into a turning lane while being followed.
- Officers Adams and Monaghan detected odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, and severely slurred speech; Bayler admitted drinking two beers.
- Monaghan administered three field sobriety tests: Bayler swayed on finger-to-nose, failed heel-to-toe, and could not complete the one-leg stand (citing prior ankle injury); Bayler refused chemical (breath) testing after requesting an attorney.
- Trial court convicted and sentenced Bayler to 3–6 months (enhanced because this was a second DUI and he refused testing). Bayler appealed, arguing insufficiency of evidence and that the judge improperly based conviction on refusal to submit to testing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for DUI (3802(a)(1)) | Commonwealth: testimony of dangerous driving, odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, poor FST performance, admission to drinking, and refusal to submit to breath test collectively prove incapacity to drive safely | Bayler: evidence only established probable cause and refusal to test; trial judge improperly treated refusal as conclusive and thus evidence was insufficient to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt | Affirmed — court found the totality of circumstantial evidence (driving, appearance, admission, FSTs, and refusal) sufficient to prove general impairment beyond a reasonable doubt; refusal to test properly admitted as evidence under §1547(e) and considered alongside other factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rahman, 75 A.3d 497 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for sufficiency review and circumstantial evidence can sustain conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Segida, 985 A.2d 871 (Pa. 2009) (types of admissible evidence for §3802(a)(1) general-impairment prosecutions)
- Commonwealth v. Teems, 74 A.3d 142 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discussion of proof required for general impairment under §3802(a)(1))
- Commonwealth v. Hartle, 894 A.2d 800 (Pa. Super. 2006) (upholding DUI conviction based on odor, bloodshot eyes, repeating, refusal to test, and swaying)
- Commonwealth v. Pruitt, 951 A.2d 307 (Pa. 2008) (appellate review of sufficiency considers all evidence admitted at trial)