Com. v. Burley, R.
1480 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 8, 2017Background
- In the early morning of Nov. 1, 2014, police responded to a one-vehicle crash on Irving Street, Allentown; appellant Regis Burley was found in the driver’s seat with a bleeding nose, glassy/bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, disorientation, and smelled of alcohol.
- Troopers attempted field sobriety testing but could not complete them due to Burley’s condition; he was transported by ambulance to the hospital where blood was drawn at 4:06 A.M.
- Initial lab testing showed a BAC of .07; subsequent testing detected 38.3 ng/ml PCP in Burley’s blood.
- At the scene, a trooper said “This is a DUI,” to which Burley spontaneously replied, “This is definitely a DUI.” Burley moved to suppress that statement as custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings.
- Burley was tried in a waiver (bench) trial, convicted of two counts of DUI under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(1)(ii) and (d)(3), sentenced to 72 hours to 6 months’ imprisonment, and appealed raising suppression, weight, and sufficiency claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Burley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admission of Burley’s statement after trooper said “This is a DUI” | Statement was a spontaneous, volunteered remark and admissible despite lack of Miranda | Statement was made while in custody and in response to police words, so should be suppressed as custodial interrogation | Admitted: court found trooper’s remark did not elicit the response; Burley’s reply was spontaneous and not subject to Miranda suppression |
| 2. Weight challenge re: chain of custody for blood sample | Chain issues were addressed at trial; lab witness confirmed proper maintenance and retesting procedures | Evidence insufficient to establish reliable chain of custody for blood retesting | Waived: Burley failed to preserve weight claim by not moving for a new trial or raising it before sentencing |
| 3. Weight challenge re: whether evidence showed actual operation of vehicle/DUI | Commonwealth presented circumstantial evidence of recent operation (vehicle off road, driver in seat, bleeding, scene observations, troopers’ testimony) | Argued evidence did not sufficiently prove he actually operated the vehicle while impaired | Waived: weight claims not preserved, so appellate review barred |
| 4. Sufficiency of the evidence under § 3802 | Evidence (observations, BAC, PCP presence, scene circumstances) was sufficient to prove DUI offense elements | Argued Commonwealth failed to prove elements; primarily recast weight arguments | Waived: Rule 1925(b) statement did not identify specific element deficiencies; claim treated as unpreserved/weight argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McAdoo, 46 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Bracey, 461 A.2d 775 (Pa. 1983) (definition of interrogation for Miranda purposes)
- In re D.H., 863 A.2d 562 (Pa. Super. 2004) (spontaneous statements admissible notwithstanding Miranda)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 42 A.3d 1017 (Pa. 2012) (Miranda does not preclude spontaneous utterances)
- Commonwealth v. Baez, 720 A.2d 711 (Pa. 1998) (volunteered statements admissible without Miranda)
- Commonwealth v. Gibson, 720 A.2d 473 (Pa. 1998) (gratuitous utterances unsolicited by police are admissible)
- Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274 (Pa. Super. 2009) (Rule 1925(b) specificity for sufficiency claims)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 825 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super. 2003) (distinguishing sufficiency from weight challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Gaskins, 692 A.2d 224 (Pa. Super. 1997) (credibility disputes go to weight, not sufficiency)