Com. v. Collier, J.
1022 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 4, 2018Background
- Appellant Joseph J. Collier was stopped after a trooper observed his van repeatedly cross lanes and drive onto the shoulder and gore area while traveling I‑95 for about a mile.
- Trooper smelled a heavy odor of alcohol, observed dilated/glassy pupils and glitter on Collier’s face, and performed an HGN test that he said indicated impairment; Collier declined/said he could not perform other sobriety tests due to an ankle injury.
- Collier was arrested, consented to a blood draw (later suppressed), convicted in Municipal Court of DUI (second offense), and sought a trial de novo in Common Pleas.
- At the de novo waiver trial the Commonwealth presented only Trooper Laurendeau; the Commonwealth conceded the blood test was suppressed.
- Collier objected to admission of the HGN testimony for lack of scientific foundation; the trial court admitted the testimony, found Collier guilty under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1), and sentenced him.
- On appeal Collier argued the HGN evidence lacked proper scientific foundation and its admission was not harmless; the Superior Court affirmed, holding any HGN error harmless given overwhelming non‑HGN evidence of impairment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Collier) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of HGN testimony | Trooper may describe field observations and HGN as indicia of impairment | HGN is scientific evidence requiring foundational proof of general acceptance; Commonwealth failed to establish it | Court assumed arguendo admission error but found any error harmless; conviction affirmed |
| Harmless‑error standard | Admission harmless because judge expressly did not rely on HGN and other evidence proved impairment | Admission prejudiced Collier and could have influenced verdict | Harmless: either de minimis prejudice or uncontradicted evidence so overwhelming error could not have contributed |
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 3802(a)(1) | Non‑HGN evidence (driving pattern, odor, appearance, inability/refusal to perform tests) sufficed | Admission of HGN was necessary to sustain conviction given other evidence | Sufficient: even without HGN, evidence supported conviction for general impairment |
| Scope of expert/scientific foundation for tests like HGN | Field‑test descriptions may be admitted with proper foundation | Stringer/Weaver require proof of general acceptance for scientific evidence like HGN | Court cited precedent but resolved case on harmless‑error and sufficiency grounds rather than resolving foundation issue definitively |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Stringer, 678 A.2d 1200 (Pa. Super. 1996) (HGN treated as scientific evidence requiring adequate foundational proof)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 721 A.2d 344 (Pa. 1998) (harmless‑error framework and standards)
- Commonwealth v. Segida, 985 A.2d 871 (Pa. 2009) (types of evidence admissible to prove general‑impairment DUI under § 3802(a)(1))
- Commonwealth v. Weaver, 76 A.3d 562 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discussing limits on HGN as substantive proof absent showing of general scientific acceptance)
- Commonwealth v. Jacoby, 170 A.3d 1065 (Pa. 2017) (Commonwealth bears burden to prove harmless error)