Com. v. Buterbaugh, M.
1353 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 25, 2016Background
- Michael E. Buterbaugh was charged after a May 1, 2014 accident with DUI (general impairment), DUI — high rate (0.10–0.16%), and a summary lane violation; he initially pled guilty to high-rate DUI as a second offense and other counts were nolle prossed or unresolved.
- Probation discovered an out-of-state prior DUI, and the Commonwealth moved to amend the information to treat the high-rate DUI as a third-offense DUI, which increased mandatory minimums and potential penalties.
- Appellant was allowed to withdraw his guilty plea after the amendment and proceeded to a two-day jury trial; jury convicted him of high-rate DUI (Count II) and the summary lane violation (Count III); Count I remained nolle prossed.
- Appellant moved to suppress blood-alcohol test results on the ground the blood draw occurred beyond the statutory two-hour window; the trial court denied suppression, invoking the §3802(g) “good cause” exception and evidence Appellant did not imbibe after arrest.
- At trial the jury requested rereading of portions of Appellant’s testimony; the court reread portions and reinstructed jurors on weighing testimony. Appellant claimed the reinstruction and other conduct unfairly emphasized his testimony and improperly influenced the jury.
- Trial court sentenced Appellant to four to sixty months with minimum fine, denied post-sentence relief, and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BAC results taken more than two hours after driving should have been suppressed | Blood test violated §3802(b)’s two-hour rule and must be suppressed | §3802(g) permits later tests if Commonwealth shows good cause and no post-arrest imbibing; Trooper testified Appellant said he did not drink after the accident | Affirmed: §3802(g) applies; Commonwealth met no-imbibing requirement via testimony, suppression denied |
| Whether amendment of the information to a third-offense DUI after a guilty plea to second-offense was improper | Amendment increased grading and penalties after plea, so was impermissible under Pa.R.Crim.P. 564 | Amendment concerns same factual scenario and prior conviction was known to defendant; no prejudice and withdrawal of plea was permitted | Affirmed: amendment permissible; no prejudice; defendant allowed to withdraw plea and go to trial |
| Whether trial court’s rereading of instructions and handling of jury request unfairly influenced the jury | Reinstruction improperly emphasized Appellant’s testimony, improperly declined symmetrical instruction regarding trooper testimony, and court’s comments biased jury | Trial court cautioned jurors no emphasis intended; juries presumed to follow instructions; reinstruction was not erroneous | Affirmed: no reversible error; reinstruction not prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mentzer, 18 A.3d 1200 (Pa. Super. 2011) (amendment of information to reflect prior out-of-state DUI was proper when same factual scenario and no prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Segida, 985 A.2d 871 (Pa. 2009) (Commonwealth not required to prove defendant did not drink after the accident for §3802 offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Eichler, 133 A.3d 775 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Commonwealth may satisfy §3802(g) no-imbibing element with officer testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Estepp, 17 A.3d 939 (Pa. Super. 2011) (jury instructions reviewed for adequacy and prejudice; reversible error only for fundamental error)
- Commonwealth v. Mollett, 5 A.3d 291 (Pa. Super. 2010) (jurors are presumed to follow a court’s instructions)
- Commonwealth v. Reid, 117 A.3d 777 (Pa. Super. 2015) (prior convictions may be used as sentencing factors and do not implicate the Sixth Amendment jury-trial requirement)