233 A.3d 842
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- On Nov. 15, 2018 police responded after appellant Wayne Glenn's father found Glenn's car in the driveway; officers found Glenn climbing a steep embankment after falling while retrieving mail.
- Glenn was visibly impaired; he had a lawful prescription Fentanyl patch from back surgery and later gave a voluntary blood sample.
- Blood tests showed alcohol (.23%), Fentanyl, and Norfentanyl (a metabolite of Fentanyl).
- Glenn was charged with multiple DUI counts; at non-jury trial he was convicted only of DUI–metabolite under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(1)(iii).
- Trial court sentenced him to 90 days to 1 year plus probation and fines; Glenn appealed, arguing § 3802(d)(1)(iii) should not criminalize metabolites of medically prescribed controlled substances.
- The Commonwealth initially defended the conviction but later withdrew its brief and agreed with Glenn; the Superior Court vacated the judgment and discharged him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(1)(iii) criminalizes driving with any amount of a metabolite of a Schedule I–III drug even when the parent drug was lawfully prescribed | Trial court/Commonwealth relied on plain text: (iii) prohibits any metabolite irrespective of prescription; the disjunctive structure shows separate prohibitions | Glenn argued that reading (iii) to reach metabolites of lawfully prescribed drugs yields an absurd result because (ii) expressly exempts medically prescribed Schedule II/III substances; ambiguous penal text must be construed for defendant | Superior Court vacated the conviction and discharged Glenn, holding that applying (iii) to metabolites of medically prescribed drugs is an absurd/unreasonable reading; statute must be read in context with (ii) and ambiguities resolved for the accused |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Griffith, 32 A.3d 1231 (Pa. 2011) (standard for statutory interpretation; de novo review of legal questions)
- Commonwealth v. Fithian, 961 A.2d 66 (Pa. 2008) (plain language is the best indicator of legislative intent)
- Commonwealth v. Office of Open Records, 103 A.3d 1276 (Pa. 2014) (statutory provisions must be read together as a whole)
- Commonwealth v. Duncan, 321 A.2d 917 (Pa. 1974) (criminal statutes strictly construed but not unreasonably rigidly)
- In re Buchanan, 823 A.2d 147 (Pa. Super. 2003) (courts may consider practical consequences to effectuate sensible construction)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 221 A.3d 631 (Pa. 2019) (rule of lenity: penal statutes construed in favor of defendant)
- Commonwealth v. Giulian, 141 A.3d 1262 (Pa. 2016) (ambiguities in penal statutes resolved for accused)