Com. v. Miklosko, M.
1816 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 17, 2017Background
- Appellant Michael A. Miklosko was charged with DUI—general impairment under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1) after a traffic stop following an illegal U‑turn and a brief weaving maneuver onto an Interstate on‑ramp.
- Officer Balazs Devenyi stopped the vehicle, smelled a moderate odor of alcohol, and observed glassy, watery, bloodshot eyes.
- Appellant performed three field sobriety tests: he passed one and failed two; he told the officer he had diabetic neuropathy which could affect performance.
- At the hospital, Appellant’s blood sugar was 349; a breath test read 0.00% and a later (stricken) blood test showed 0.019%. The officer testified the breathalyzer had been found defective.
- The officer testified he suspected impairment from the sobriety tests, Appellant’s admissions, and a belief Appellant had drugs in his system, but did not explicitly testify that Appellant was incapable of safe driving.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove DUI—general impairment (incapable of safe driving) | Commonwealth: sobriety-test failures, odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, admissions and driving behavior show substantial impairment | Miklosko: tests inconclusive, medical condition (diabetes) could explain signs and failures; breath test 0.00% and nearly negligible blood result undermine impairment claim | Majority: conviction sustained; Dissent (Musmanno, J.): evidence insufficient and would vacate conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Palmer, 751 A.2d 223 (Pa. Super. 2000) (defines "incapable of safe driving" as alcohol substantially impairing faculties required for driving)
- Commonwealth v. Montini, 712 A.2d 761 (Pa. Super. 1998) ("substantial impairment" means diminished ability to exercise judgment, deliberate, or react prudently)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 831 A.2d 636 (Pa. Super. 2003) (to convict under § 3802(a)(1) must prove alcohol substantially impaired normal faculties)
- Commonwealth v. Rosko, 509 A.2d 1289 (Pa. Super. 1986) (consumption and odor of alcohol alone are insufficient to establish incapacity to drive)