Com. v. Iris-Williams, J.
2658 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 21, 2016Background
- On Jan. 20, 2015 Officer John Kelly observed Appellant Jeremy Iris-Williams driving a Lexus on I-95: passing on the right, changing multiple lanes without signaling, and reaching 90.8 mph on a stretch with a 55 (or 45 in construction) mph limit.
- Appellant was cited for reckless driving in Philadelphia Traffic Division; he appealed de novo to the Court of Common Pleas.
- A May 20, 2015 listing generated confusion: the hearing notice had a trial box checked and "Trial" handwritten, but the Commonwealth and the trial court believed the date was a status conference and the officer was not subpoenaed.
- Appellant moved to dismiss for the officer’s nonappearance on May 20; the trial court granted a continuance instead, finding good cause because the first listing is ordinarily a status date.
- Trial occurred Aug. 14, 2015. Officer Kelly testified to the observations and tracker reading; Appellant was convicted of reckless driving and appealed, challenging (1) denial of dismissal/ exclusion of testimony for the officer’s May nonappearance, (2) sufficiency of evidence for reckless driving, and (3) failure to prove calibration/approval of the speed device.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying dismissal or precluding officer testimony after officer failed to appear at first listing | Commonwealth: continuance proper because the court and Commonwealth reasonably treated May 20 as a status listing (good cause) | Iris-Williams: hearing notice clearly scheduled a de novo trial; officer’s absence required dismissal or exclusion under Pa.R.Crim.P. 1037(C) | Affirmed: continuance valid; first listing was treated as status date and good cause existed for officer’s unavailability |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to sustain reckless driving conviction | Commonwealth: officer’s testimony (extreme speed, unsafe lane changes, rush-hour traffic, construction) established willful/wanton disregard | Iris-Williams: conduct at most careless or speeding; not willful/wanton as required for reckless driving | Affirmed: facts (up to 90.8 mph, multiple unsafe lane changes in heavy/construction traffic) supported recklessness akin to Fieldler rather than Greenberg |
| Whether Commonwealth needed to prove speed device approval/calibration for reckless driving based on tracker reading | Commonwealth: not required because charge was reckless driving, not a speeding violation | Iris-Williams: tracker speed formed part of proof, so device approval/calibration evidence required per Kaufman/§3368(d) | Affirmed: no requirement here because defendant was not charged with speeding and appellant cited no authority imposing calibration proof for reckless-driving conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Trinidad, 96 A.3d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2014) (sets sufficiency-of-evidence review standard)
- Commonwealth v. Greenberg, 885 A.2d 1025 (Pa. Super. 2005) (speed too high for conditions may still be insufficient for recklessness)
- Commonwealth v. Fieldler, 931 A.2d 745 (Pa. Super. 2007) (driving far above the limit in hazardous conditions can support reckless-driving conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Schmitzer, 428 A.2d 610 (Pa. Super. 1981) (reckless-driving conviction sustained where driver exceeded lane/speed limits in heavy/public area)
- Commonwealth v. Kaufman, 849 A.2d 1258 (Pa. Super. 2004) (to sustain a speeding conviction, Commonwealth must prove device approval and calibration)