Com. v. Harner, J.
295 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 19, 2017Background
- On August 4, 2016, Officer Anthony Martine stopped Jeremy Harner in Butler Township, Luzerne County for speeding and issued a citation for driving with a suspended license.
- At the scene, Harner told the officer he had missed payments on prior fines and that his license was not valid; the officer checked records, identified the magistrate’s office to which Harner owed fines, and issued the citation.
- Harner was convicted by a magisterial district judge of driving while his operating privilege was suspended and appealed to the trial court.
- At the de novo trial, Officer Martine testified that Harner admitted his license was suspended; Harner testified he believed his license was valid and had provided his driver’s license to the officer.
- The trial court found Harner guilty and imposed fines and costs; Harner appealed arguing insufficient evidence that he knew his license was suspended at the time of the stop.
- The Superior Court affirmed, concluding the officer’s testimony that Harner admitted the suspension sufficed to prove the notice element required for conviction under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commonwealth proved Harner knew his license was suspended when driving | Commonwealth: Officer Martine testified Harner told him his license was suspended, and records showed prior suspensions. | Harner: He did not tell the officer his license was suspended; he believed fines were paid and license valid. | Court: Sufficient evidence—officer credible that Harner admitted suspension; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 744 A.2d 745 (2000) (sets sufficiency-of-evidence standard and review rule).
- Commonwealth v. Karkaria, 533 Pa. 412, 625 A.2d 1167 (1993) (each element must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt).
- Commonwealth v. Santana, 460 Pa. 482, 333 A.2d 876 (1975) (evidence contrary to physical facts or human experience may be insufficient).
- Commonwealth v. Chambers, 528 Pa. 558, 599 A.2d 630 (1991) (view evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner).
- Commonwealth v. Morgan, 913 A.2d 906 (Pa. Super. 2006) (discusses Section 1543 and knowledge element).
- Commonwealth v. Kane, 452 Pa. 210, 333 A.2d 925 (Pa. 1975) (operator’s awareness of suspension is required element).
- Commonwealth v. Zimmick, 536 Pa. 18, 653 A.2d 1217 (1995) (actual notice remains essential under § 1543).