242 A.3d 659
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- In December 2017 Clemens struck a light pole outside a truck stop; an employee (Dobson) spoke with him ~10–15 minutes later and detected the odor of alcohol, saw fogged windows, and observed front-end vehicle damage.
- State Troopers Weaver and Koebley arrived, smelled a strong odor of alcohol, saw a 25‑oz can of 8% alcoholic beverage in the passenger seat (partially consumed), and observed Clemens repeating himself and fumbling for paperwork.
- Clemens refused field sobriety tests and a breath test (signed DL‑26 refusal form), delayed and was uncooperative, and resisted troopers’ repeated commands to exit the vehicle.
- Troopers physically removed him after he gripped the steering wheel and locked his feet; a taser was used and officers handcuffed him.
- Jury convicted Clemens of Resisting Arrest; the trial court convicted him of DUI—General Impairment, Careless Driving, and Open Container; Clemens appealed arguing insufficiency and weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Clemens) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for DUI—General Impairment | Evidence showed operation of vehicle into pole, strong odor of alcohol, open high‑ABV can in car, refusal of tests, impaired behavior — supports conviction | No witness saw him driving; smell and one can insufficient; fogged windows/new vehicle explain accident and behavior | Affirmed — evidence (admissions, odor, open container, behavior, refusals) sufficient to prove impairment |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Resisting Arrest | Officers had probable cause for DUI; commands to exit and force used (taser, struggle) showed resistance that required substantial force | Troopers never said the word "arrest"; he did not assault officers and did not knowingly resist an arrest | Affirmed — probable cause and passive resistance requiring substantial force supported conviction |
| Weight of the evidence for DUI—General Impairment | N/A (Commonwealth relied on credibility of witnesses and totality of indicia of impairment) | Verdict against weight; evidence better explained by fogged windows and unfamiliar vehicle | Trial court did not abuse discretion; weight claim denied |
| Weight of the evidence for Resisting Arrest | N/A (Commonwealth relied on taser/use of force and officers’ testimony) | Verdict against weight; no evidence of striking or severe force required by officers | Trial court did not abuse discretion; weight claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Feliciano, 67 A.3d 19 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Segida, 985 A.2d 871 (Pa. 2009) (elements of DUI—General Impairment)
- Commonwealth v. Kerry, 906 A.2d 1237 (Pa. Super. 2006) (definition of "substantial impairment" for DUI)
- Commonwealth v. Gause, 164 A.3d 532 (Pa. Super. 2017) (reversing DUI where indicia of impairment were minimal and defendant cooperative)
- Commonwealth v. Thompson, 922 A.2d 926 (Pa. Super. 2007) (resisting arrest conviction upheld for passive resistance requiring substantial force)
- Commonwealth v. Hock, 728 A.2d 943 (Pa. 1999) (lawful arrest requires probable cause for resisting arrest offense)
- Commonwealth v. Soto, 202 A.3d 80 (Pa. Super. 2018) (reiterating requirement of probable cause for lawful arrest)
- Commonwealth v. Roane, 204 A.3d 998 (Pa. Super. 2019) (standard of review for weight of the evidence)