Com. v. Lipchik, J., 556 WDA 2016

On Feb. 15, 2015, police responded to a fight; officer observed Lipchik driving erratically, stopped him, smelled alcohol, and noted bloodshot eyes and slurred speech.
Due to poor weather, officer transported Lipchik to the hospital for sobriety testing; Lipchik refused field sobriety tests and a blood test.
Lipchik was charged with DUI (75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1)) and related summary offenses; convicted by a jury and sentenced to 1–5 years imprisonment on April 1, 2016.
Lipchik appealed, challenging (1) the trial court’s refusal to grant a mistrial after the judge told the jury Lipchik had no right to refuse a blood test and that his refusal was "wrongful," and (2) denial of suppression for statements/refusals made while allegedly in custody without Miranda warnings.
The trial court had granted suppression of one custodial statement but admitted the refusals and allowed the jury to consider the refusal as a factor; on appeal the Superior Court vacated the judgment of sentence and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judge’s comments that defendant had no right to refuse blood test and that refusal was "wrongful" required mistrial	Commonwealth: judge’s corrective instructions cured any potential prejudice	Lipchik: judge’s comments misstate law, prejudiced jury, warranted mistrial	Superior Court: judge erred; comments misstated statutory right to refuse and characterized refusal as wrongful; mistrial warranted — judgment vacated and remanded
Whether refusals and statements at hospital should be suppressed due to custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings	Lipchik: was in custody when handcuffed/transported, so Miranda applies; refusals/statements inadmissible	Commonwealth: field sobriety tests are non‑testimonial (no Miranda required); statutory refusal to blood is admissible evidence	Superior Court: trial court correctly denied suppression for the refusals—field sobriety requests are non‑testimonial (Hayes); refusal to blood admissible under statute; only one custodial response previously suppressed

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (establishes Miranda warnings requirement for custodial interrogation)
Commonwealth v. Hayes, 674 A.2d 677 (Pa. 1996) (field sobriety tests are non‑testimonial; Miranda not required)
Commonwealth v. Fortenbaugh, 69 A.3d 191 (Pa. 2013) (cautionary instructions can cure prejudice instead of granting a mistrial)
Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 158 A.3d 1287 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard of review for denial of mistrial and judge’s discretion)
Commonwealth v. Burwell, 42 A.3d 1077 (Pa. Super. 2012) (weight juries give to judge’s comments can unduly influence verdict)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 64 A.3d 1101 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for appellate review of suppression rulings)
Commonwealth v. Cauley, 10 A.3d 321 (Pa. Super. 2010) (use of prevailing party’s evidence when reviewing suppression rulings)
Claiborne v. Commonwealth, 102 A.2d 900 (Pa. Super. 1953) (noting the persuasive weight of a trial judge’s opinion to a jury)
Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (addressing criminal penalties and compelled blood tests post‑refusal)