Com. v. Fry, D.
Com. v. Fry, D. No. 698 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 7, 2017Background
- Trooper Walker clocked Fry driving 109 mph in a 55 mph zone near the intersection of State Route 219 and Route 6 on April 12, 2014; Walker activated lights and effectuated a stop about one-half mile later.
- Upon contact, Walker detected a strong odor of alcohol, observed glassy/bloodshot eyes and slurred speech, and Fry admitted to drinking 2–3 beers.
- Fry failed field sobriety tests, was arrested, and transported for a blood draw; after implied-consent warnings Fry refused and signed the DL-26 refusal form.
- At a non-jury trial, the court found Fry guilty of DUI (general impairment) and related summary offenses and sentenced him to 20 days–6 months imprisonment under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3804(c)(1), which imposes a 72-hour mandatory minimum for first offenders who refused testing.
- Fry appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence that the offense occurred in McKean County (jurisdiction) and (2) the mandatory sentence was unlawful because police did not obtain a warrant before demanding blood.
- The Superior Court affirmed the convictions, held jurisdiction was established (judicial notice of location), but vacated the DUI sentence and remanded for resentencing under Birchfield v. North Dakota because criminal penalties for blood-test refusal are invalid absent a warrant or exigent circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commonwealth proved situs so trial court had McKean County jurisdiction | Commonwealth: trooper testimony locating the stop "just south" of known intersection and that the stop occurred ~½ mile after radar fix; trial court may take judicial notice that intersection is in McKean County | Fry: Commonwealth only showed the stop occurred "just south of" an intersection near a county line, insufficient to prove county of offense | Court: Sufficient — judicial notice of intersection being in McKean County plus testimony about distance established jurisdiction; convictions affirmed |
| Whether Fry’s sentence (mandatory minimum under §3804(c)(1) tied to blood-test refusal) was lawful absent a warrant | Commonwealth: issue waived for failure to raise below; implied-consent warnings and statutory scheme permitted enhanced penalties for refusal | Fry: Under Birchfield, criminalizing refusal to submit to blood testing is unconstitutional without a warrant or exigent circumstances | Court: Not waived (legality of sentence non-waivable); Birchfield controls — state may not criminalize refusal to blood test without warrant/exigent circumstances; mandatory-minimum sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing without considering §3804(c)(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sestina, 546 A.2d 109 (Pa. Super. 1988) (trial court may take judicial notice of street/intersection locations to establish county situs)
- Commonwealth v. Varner, 401 A.2d 1235 (Pa. Super. 1979) (judicial notice of well-known geographic facts near county border appropriate to establish situs)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (States may not criminalize refusal to submit to a blood test absent a warrant or exigent circumstances)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (U.S. 2004) (new rules from the Supreme Court apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review)