Com. v. McConnell, R.
163 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 25, 2017Background
- On May 11, 2015 McConnell crashed an ATV and witnesses and the trooper identified him as the driver; he smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech, and admitted drinking.
- Trooper Borger observed skid marks on a public road (Serfass Road) and testimony indicated the ATV traveled from Serfass onto Bottom Road (a service/private road); McConnell denied operating on Serfass at the time.
- McConnell refused field sobriety tests and signed a waiver refusing blood testing; he recalled refusing a breath test. He had a prior DUI/ARD that resulted in a suspension he never restored.
- Commonwealth charged McConnell with DUI (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1)) tried to a jury, and summary offenses of driving under DUI-suspension (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(b)(1)) and careless driving (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3714(a)) heard by the court.
- Jury acquitted McConnell of DUI; court convicted him of DUI-suspension and careless driving and sentenced him to 90 days incarceration plus fines for the suspension conviction.
- On appeal McConnell argued (1) insufficiency of the evidence as to operating on a highway/trafficway and refusing blood testing, and (2) that § 1543(b)(2)’s “until restoration” provision violates substantive due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for driving under DUI-suspension (operating on highway/trafficway; refusal to submit to blood test) | Evidence insufficient to show ATV was operated on a public highway/trafficway and insufficient proof of refusal to submit to blood testing | Trial court found skid marks, witness statements, and testimony showing operation on public road; McConnell signed waiver refusing blood test | Waived on appeal for failure to specify elements in Rule 1925(b); court did not reach merits |
| Constitutionality of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(b)(2) (“until restoration” provision) | § 1543(b)(2) arbitrarily extends DUI-related suspension penalties until license restoration and violates substantive due process | Statute rationally furthers legitimate state interest in highway safety; requiring affirmative restoration application is reasonable for public protection | Affirmed: statute satisfies rational-basis review and does not violate substantive due process |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 959 A.2d 1252 (Pa. Super. 2008) (Rule 1925(b) must specify elements challenged to preserve sufficiency claim)
- Castillo v. Commonwealth, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. Super. 2005) (appellate waiver principles under Rule 1925(b))
- Butler v. Commonwealth, 812 A.2d 631 (Pa. 2002) (application of Rule 1925(b) waiver doctrine)
- Jenner v. Commonwealth, 681 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 1996) (driving is a privilege, not a fundamental right)
- Moss v. Commonwealth, 852 A.2d 374 (Pa. Super. 2004) (standard of review for questions of law is plenary)
- Haughwout v. Commonwealth, 837 A.2d 480 (Pa. Super. 2003) (presumption of constitutionality for statutes)
- Mayfield v. Commonwealth, 832 A.2d 418 (Pa. 2003) (statute will not be declared unconstitutional absent clear violation)
- Strunk v. Commonwealth, 582 A.2d 1326 (Pa. Super. 1990) (two-step rational-basis test for substantive due process challenges)
- Hoover v. Commonwealth, 494 A.2d 1131 (Pa. Super. 1985) (legislative response to drunk driving and related statutes)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (warrantless blood-test refusal cannot be criminally punished; breath-test refusal may be punished)