Com. v. Lloyd, M.
Com. v. Lloyd, M. No. 1395 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Mar 20, 2017Background
- On March 31, 2015, police found Michael Lloyd beside a Dodge pickup in a ditch near a bar after a 911 call; Lloyd initially denied driving but later admitted he had been driving.
- Officer observed red, glossy eyes, strong alcohol odor, and Lloyd stumbled when retrieving ID; Lloyd told officer, “I’m done and I’m drunk.”
- Lloyd refused some field tests; he was arrested and transported to the DUI center where blood was drawn at 12:52 a.m., producing a BAC of 0.23%.
- Lloyd was convicted after a non-jury trial of DUI—general impairment, DUI—highest rate (BAC ≥ 0.16 within two hours of operation), and careless driving.
- Sentenced to 72 hours to 6 months incarceration and a $25 fine; post-sentence motion and weight challenge denied; Lloyd appealed challenging sufficiency and weight as to the two-hour temporal requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commonwealth proved BAC ≥ 0.16 within two hours of driving under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(c) | Commonwealth: video and officer testimony establish timeline tying driving to blood draw within two hours | Lloyd: no proof of when he last operated vehicle; blood draw time not tied to operation; possible drinking after driving; requires more precise timing | Affirmed: evidence (video, 911 time, officer arrival, admission, blood draw time) sufficient to permit finding blood draw within two hours of operation |
| Whether verdict shocked the conscience / weight of the evidence regarding two-hour requirement | Commonwealth: testimony and circumstantial evidence made appellee’s timeline credible | Lloyd: his and girlfriend’s testimony claimed girlfriend drove and he waited over an hour; Commonwealth should have shown tire-track age, etc. | Affirmed: trial judge as factfinder reasonably discredited Lloyd’s account; no palpable abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873 (discussing sufficiency standard and deference to factfinder)
- Commonwealth v. Segida, 985 A.2d 871 (explaining the two-hour temporal requirement for certain DUI offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Duda, 923 A.2d 1138 (reason for two-hour rule: practical impossibility of exact BAC at time of driving)
- Commonwealth v. Landis, 89 A.3d 694 (standard of review for weight of the evidence claims)
- Commonwealth v. Karns, 50 A.3d 158 (describing appellate review limits on weight claims)