Com. v. Horvatinovic, A.
1279 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 14, 2016Background
- Appellant Alex Horvatinovic was stopped at a DUI checkpoint in North York Borough in the early morning of May 25, 2013; officer Grey identified him as the driver of a red Hyundai Elantra.
- Appellant admitted he drank a beer and two shots about 30 minutes before contact; he performed field sobriety tests, was arrested, and consented to a blood draw at 2:44 a.m. while remaining under officer supervision.
- NMS Laboratories toxicology detected Delta-9 THC (13 ng/mL), 11‑Hydroxy‑Delta‑9 THC (5.1 ng/mL), and Delta‑9 Carboxy THC (90 ng/mL) in Appellant’s blood.
- The Commonwealth prosecuted under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d) for driving with a Schedule I controlled substance and with a metabolite present (second offenses).
- At trial the jury convicted on both controlled‑substance DUI counts (acquitted on combination drug/alcohol count); trial court sentenced to incarceration, house arrest, and probation.
- Appellant appealed arguing insufficiency (no proof he drove and no proof drugs were in his blood while driving) and that the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence because the toxicologist could not pinpoint ingestion timing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Horvatinovic) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved Appellant was in actual physical control/driver of the vehicle | Circumstantial evidence (checkpoint location, officer identification, encounter at the driver’s position) supports inference he drove | No direct eyewitness showed he drove; circumstantial evidence insufficient | Affirmed — sufficient circumstantial evidence to find actual physical control |
| Whether controlled substance (THC/metabolites) was present while Appellant was driving | Blood draw within ~50 minutes of contact, defendant had no opportunity to ingest at checkpoint, toxicology shows THC and metabolites — supports presence while driving | Toxicologist could not determine exact time of ingestion; presence at draw doesn’t prove presence at time of driving | Affirmed — timing evidence (no consumption while in custody and rapid absorption) sufficient to infer presence during driving |
| Weight challenge — toxicologist could not state when marijuana was ingested | Toxicology plus officer testimony about custody and lack of ingestion while detained supports verdict | Because expert couldn’t fix timing, verdict is against the weight of evidence | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; verdict not against weight of evidence |
| Weight challenge — insufficient proof Appellant drove | Circumstantial indicators described above undermine weight challenge | No eyewitness; verdict against weight because of lack of direct proof | Affirmed — trial court properly exercised discretion in denying new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Mauz v. Commonwealth, 122 A.3d 1039 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard for sufficiency review; resolve inferences in favor of verdict winner)
- Young v. Commonwealth, 904 A.2d 947 (Pa. Super. 2006) (circumstantial evidence may establish actual physical control)
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 941 A.2d 14 (Pa. Super. 2008) (factors for actual physical control: motor running, vehicle location, additional evidence)
- Lehman v. Commonwealth, 820 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 2003) (driver slumped in driver’s seat with engine running supports control inference)
- Jones v. Commonwealth, 121 A.3d 524 (Pa. Super. 2015) (prohibition attaches to any amount of Schedule I substance or its metabolite in driver’s blood)
- Widmer v. Commonwealth, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard and deference for weight‑of‑the‑evidence review)