Com. v. Love, B.
Com. v. Love, B. No. 3788 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Jul 13, 2017Background
- At ~2–3 a.m., Trooper Everett stopped Bryan Love after observing him drive with high beams on and run a steady red light; Everett noticed alcohol odor and bloodshot, glassy eyes.
- Love admitted to two beers, appeared agitated/nervous, and performed poorly on the walk-and-turn field sobriety test, stopping halfway and requesting a hospital blood draw; he also mentioned a recent gunshot wound to his leg.
- Love was arrested and taken for a blood test; the trial court later suppressed the blood-test results post‑Birchfield.
- Commonwealth charged Love with multiple offenses; at a stipulated-fact non‑jury trial the court convicted him of DUI—general impairment (75 Pa.C.S. §3802(a)(1)) and two traffic offenses, then sentenced him to 1–6 months’ incarceration.
- On appeal Love challenged sufficiency of the evidence to prove incapacity to drive safely due to alcohol; the Superior Court reviewed de novo, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Love) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence to convict of DUI—general impairment? | Trooper Everett’s observations (driving through red light with high beams, odor of alcohol, glassy/bloodshot eyes, agitation, failed field sobriety, missed exit) and his expert opinion suffice to prove incapacity. | Driving behavior (no swerving during half‑mile follow), fatigue explains red/bloodshot eyes, and gunshot wound explains poor performance on walk‑and‑turn; blood test suppressed. | Affirmed—circumstantial evidence and officer testimony were sufficient to prove incapacity beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (Supreme Court decision bearing on admissibility of warrantless blood tests)
- Commonwealth v. Segida, 985 A.2d 871 (Pa. 2009) (lists officer observations admissible to prove DUI incapacity)
- Commonwealth v. Eichler, 133 A.3d 775 (Pa. Super. 2016) (definition/elements of DUI—general impairment)
- Commonwealth v. Mobley, 14 A.3d 887 (Pa. Super. 2011) (erratic driving is not required; it is one factor)
- Commonwealth v. Stanley, 629 A.2d 940 (Pa. Super. 1993) (running a red light plus signs of intoxication can support DUI conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Laboy, 936 A.2d 1058 (Pa. 2007) (sufficiency claims not waived where trial court can discern and address them)