Com. v. Braddock, K.
Com. v. Braddock, K. No. 1998 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 13, 2017Background
- On Oct. 8, 2014, Officer Staley observed Kathleen Braddock drive erratically (crossing center line, nearly hitting parked car, failing to stop immediately, and driving onto a sidewalk) and later encounter her unsteady, slurring, smelling of alcohol. He arrested her for DUI.
- Braddock refused chemical testing after receiving DL-26 warnings; police transported her to the medical center and then to the county prison. Video taken ~1 hour after arrest showed her behaving erratically in the patrol car (removing handcuffs/seatbelt, nodding off).
- At trial the Commonwealth introduced the in-car video; dash-cam footage of the initial stop was missing and not produced (officer testified it was lost by mistake).
- A jury convicted Braddock of DUI (general impairment) and DUI with refusal; bench found two summary driving offenses. Trial court imposed a mandatory 72-hour minimum jail term based on statutory enhanced penalty for refusal to submit to testing.
- On appeal, Braddock challenged (1) admission of the patrol-car video as prejudicial and incomplete, (2) that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and (3) the legality of the sentence under Birchfield v. North Dakota (challenging criminal penalties for refusing warrantless blood draws).
- Superior Court affirmed the convictions, concluded the video was admissible and the weight challenge failed, but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because Birchfield precludes criminal penalties for refusing a warrantless blood draw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of in‑car video | Commonwealth: video is relevant circumstantial evidence of impairment and probative; prejudice minimal and mitigated by jury instructions | Braddock: video taken well after the stop was irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, and misleading because other contemporaneous dash footage was not produced | Held: Video admissible; relevant to impairment, probative value outweighed prejudice; jury instruction addressed missing footage and prejudice was minimal |
| Weight of the evidence (DUI) | Commonwealth: eyewitness and corroborating officer testimony (driving behavior, odor, slurred speech, corroborating officers) supported convictions | Braddock: officer testimony inconsistent; her explanations (work exposure, vinaigrette, injuries) unrebutted; missing dash footage undermines case | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion; credibility/resolution of conflicts for factfinder; verdict did not shock conscience |
| Use of refusal evidence at trial | Commonwealth: refusal evidence part of events and admissible | Braddock: post‑Birchfield, exercise of right to refuse warrantless blood draw should not be used against defendant (analogous to Miranda silence) | Held: Argument waived on appeal (not preserved below); court also recognized Birchfield but treated use-of-refusal claim as waived and did not grant new trial on that basis |
| Enhanced criminal penalty for refusal | Commonwealth: statutory scheme imposes enhanced penalties for refusal under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3804(c) | Braddock: post‑Birchfield, criminalizing refusal to submit to warrantless blood draw is unconstitutional and renders enhanced penalty void | Held: Sentence illegal as to mandatory minimum imposed for refusal; vacated and remanded for resentencing consistent with Birchfield |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (warrantless blood tests may not be criminalized under implied‑consent statutes; motorists cannot be deemed to have consented to blood draw on pain of criminal penalty)
- Commonwealth v. Schoff, 911 A.2d 147 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard for review of evidentiary rulings and relevance/probative analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard for weight‑of‑the‑evidence review)
- Commonwealth v. Carson, 913 A.2d 220 (Pa. 2006) (brief display of defendant in handcuffs in evidence does not inherently destroy presumption of innocence)
- Commonwealth v. Karns, 50 A.3d 158 (Pa. Super. 2012) (credibility of officer testimony can sustain general‑impairment DUI conviction even when other technical evidence is lacking)
- Commonwealth v. Gooding, 818 A.2d 546 (Pa. Super. 2003) (weight‑of‑the‑evidence review scope and deference to factfinder)