Com. v. Heldibridle, J.
Com. v. Heldibridle, J. No. 922 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 12, 2017Background
- On October 17, 2013, Trooper Scott Urban stopped Joan Heldibridle after observing lane departures and swerving; he smelled alcohol, she admitted drinking, and was not wearing a seatbelt.
- Trooper Urban administered HGN, one‑leg stand, and walk‑and‑turn tests; Heldibridle failed all. She would not or could not complete portable breath tests and fled briefly when an arrest was attempted.
- At the hospital she consented to a blood draw; lab results showed BAC 0.084. The trooper’s dashcam video was played at trial.
- Heldibridle was tried in a bench trial and convicted of DUI under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1) (incapable of safe driving), failing to drive within a single lane, and failing to use a seatbelt; she was acquitted of § 3802(a)(2) (BAC 0.08–0.10), careless driving, and public drunkenness.
- She was sentenced to five days to six months (five days on house arrest), appealed, and raised two evidentiary challenges: admission of HGN testimony and admission of BAC evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Heldibridle) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of HGN test evidence | HGN testimony was proper and supported by trooper’s observations; admissibility within court’s discretion | HGN should be excluded because the test has been "disproven" and thus inadmissible as a matter of law; alternatively, lack of foundation on appeal | Issue waived on appeal: trial objection did not preserve a foundation claim; appellant objected only that HGN is "disproven" |
| Admissibility of BAC evidence (chain of custody/foundation/hearsay) | BAC exhibits and lab testimony were properly admitted with foundation; chain‑of‑custody goes to weight, not admissibility | BAC evidence lacked proper foundation and contained inadmissible hearsay; its admission prejudiced the verdict | No reversible error: even if improperly admitted, bench trial judge explicitly stated the verdict was independent of BAC and appellate court presumes judge disregarded any inadmissible evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Woodard, 129 A.3d 480 (Pa. 2015) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings and abuse of discretion)
- Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co., 322 A.2d 114 (Pa. 1974) (requirement of timely objections to preserve issues for appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Phillips, 141 A.3d 512 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (failure to preserve issues by timely objection is waiver)
- Coffey v. Minwax Co., 764 A.2d 616 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (foundation objection waived if trial grounding differs)
- Commonwealth v. McFadden, 156 A.3d 299 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (bench trial presumption that judge disregards inadmissible evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Harvey, 526 A.2d 330 (Pa. 1987) (distinction between jury and bench trials regarding effect of inadmissible evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Leighty, 693 A.2d 1324 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (jury trial — presumption that juries may be influenced by inadmissible BAC evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Stringer, 678 A.2d 1200 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (addressing admissibility and scientific acceptance issues for HGN)