Com. v. Key, E.
Com. v. Key, E. No. 885 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- On December 17, 2014, Ernest Key crashed a vehicle into a telephone pole; officer observed slurred speech, confusion, nodding, and difficulty standing. Key admitted driving and requested his medications at the scene.
- Blood was drawn and tested by a forensic lab, which identified benzodiazepine (Valium) and oxymorphone (Oxycodone), both CNS depressants. An initial toxicology report was admitted at a May 18, 2015 hearing.
- Key was charged with DUI (controlled substances), careless driving, and driving while suspended. A jury convicted Key after a November 20, 2015 trial; sentencing followed on February 10, 2016.
- Key asked for a continuance on the first day of the rescheduled jury trial, arguing he received a second expert report on November 16, 2015 (four days before trial) that opined impairment and he lacked time to retain a rebuttal expert.
- The trial court denied the continuance, finding the toxicology data had been available since May, the second report merely applied the toxicology to police facts, and Key had not exercised diligence in obtaining his own expert; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance to obtain a defense expert after receiving the Commonwealth’s later expert opinion report | Commonwealth: denial within court’s discretion; prosecution relied on existing toxicology and expert testimony at trial | Key: received Commonwealth expert opinion four days before trial, could not secure a rebuttal expert in time, hence prejudiced | Denial affirmed: no abuse of discretion — toxicology was available months earlier, Key lacked diligence, and no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McAleer, 748 A.2d 670 (Pa. 2000) (standard of review for continuance denials; abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Small, 741 A.2d 666 (Pa. 1999) (trial court discretion to grant/deny continuance to secure witnesses; factors to consider)
- Commonwealth v. Ross, 57 A.3d 85 (Pa. Super. 2012) (bald claim of insufficient time inadequate; must show specific prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Thoeun Tha, 64 A.3d 704 (Pa. Super. 2013) (failure to contemporaneously object waives claim on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Christmas, 995 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. 2010) (issues not raised in Rule 1925(b) statement are waived for appellate review)