243 A.3d 980
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- At ~1:30 a.m. on April 17, 2016, Trooper Loughner pursued Donoughe for speeding (clocked at 87 mph in a 55 mph zone) and stopped his Jeep. Trooper’s dashcam initiated an MVR of the stop.
- Trooper detected strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, slow movements, saw unopened beer in the back seat, conducted HGN and a portable breath test (PBT), arrested, and a legal breath test later showed .107% BAC.
- Donoughe was placed in an ARD (diversion) program; per State Police policy MVR/DVD was destroyed ~90 days after ARD admission (April 3, 2017).
- Charges were later refiled after Donoughe’s removal from ARD; he moved to dismiss under Brady/constitutional due process because the MVR was destroyed.
- Trial court denied the Brady/spoliation dismissal (no bad faith in destruction of “potentially useful” evidence) and later convicted him of DUI (75 Pa.C.S.A. §3802(a)(1) and (a)(2)) and speeding; acquitted on careless driving.
- On appeal Donoughe challenged the denial of the Brady motion and the sufficiency of evidence for general-impairment DUI; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady/spoliation (MVR destruction) — due process | MVR was potentially exculpatory/material; its destruction prejudiced defense and violated due process | MVR was only "potentially useful" and was destroyed under a routine ARD retention policy; no bad faith by police so no due process violation | Denied — no Brady relief: defendant failed to show MVR was materially exculpatory or that police acted in bad faith when they destroyed it |
| Sufficiency of evidence for §3802(a)(1) (general impairment) | Trooper didn’t administer full FSTs; PBT not given a numeric reading; observations alone insufficient to prove general impairment beyond a reasonable doubt | Trooper’s observations (odor, bloodshot/glassy eyes, slow movements), HGN, PBT, and .107 BAC support impairment | Claim waived for inadequate briefing; on merits evidence was sufficient to support conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution suppression of materially exculpatory evidence violates due process)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) (lost/destroyed evidence standard: must be apparent exculpatory value and irreplaceable)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (no due process violation for destruction of "potentially useful" evidence absent bad faith)
- Commonwealth v. Snyder, 963 A.2d 396 (Pa. 2009) (recognizes bad-faith requirement for destroyed but only "potentially useful" evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 30 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2011) (discusses Youngblood/Trombetta standards in Pennsylvania context)
- Commonwealth v. Coon, 26 A.3d 1159 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Pennsylvania Constitution provides no more protection than federal due process for lost evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Gause, 164 A.3d 532 (Pa. Super. 2017) (types of evidence sufficient to prove §3802(a)(1) general impairment)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard of review and sufficiency of evidence principles)
- Commonwealth v. Segida, 985 A.2d 871 (Pa. 2009) (permissible forms of evidence to prove DUI general impairment)