Com. v. Moulis, W.
1674 WDA 2014
Pa. Super. Ct.Oct 30, 2015Background
- On Nov. 2, 2013, Lisa Jacobs (identified 911 caller) reported a tan/brown Chevy Cavalier driving erratically, failing to stop at stop signs and nearly causing collisions.
- Officer Eric Maga stopped that vehicle; William Moulis was the driver and Mary Mattei the passenger. Maga observed slow speech, pinpoint pupils, delayed production of documents, and unsteadiness.
- Maga administered HGN at the scene (6/6 impairment signs); PBT showed no alcohol. Walk-and-turn and one-leg-stand tests were later conducted at the station; Moulis failed those tests.
- Blood testing detected therapeutic levels of Xanax and Valium; toxicology expert testified these drugs can cause impairment. Moulis admitted taking Xanax within one to two days prior and claimed prescriptions.
- Moulis moved to suppress (arguing lack of probable cause) and sought video evidence (dashcam and station surveillance). Court denied suppression, found Commonwealth lacked the requested videos, and deemed Mattei’s contradictory testimony incredible.
- Bench trial conviction for DUI (controlled substance), stop sign/yield violations, and careless driving; sentence time served + 6 months probation. Moulis appealed raising suppression, Brady/due process, sufficiency and weight issues.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Moulis's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suppression denial was erroneous (probable cause to arrest) | 911 tip + officer observations (speech, pupils, delayed documents), failed HGN and unsteady gait provided probable cause | Arrest lacked probable cause because Moulis did not violate vehicle code and did not fail sobriety tests | Denial affirmed — probable cause existed based on citizen tip and officer observations/tests |
| Whether Commonwealth violated due process/Brady by not producing videos | Dashcam never worked; station video not shown to exist or preserved; no bad faith by Commonwealth | Failure to produce dashcam/station video deprived due process and was Brady violation | No Brady or due process violation — videos not in Commonwealth’s possession and no bad faith shown |
| Sufficiency of evidence for DUI (controlled substance) | Testimony, field sobriety failures, and toxicology showing therapeutic benzodiazepines supported finding of impairment | Evidence insufficient to prove elements of DUI beyond a reasonable doubt | Conviction upheld — evidence sufficient when viewed in light most favorable to Commonwealth |
| Weight of the evidence | Credibility determinations for Jacobs and officer supported verdict; Mattei found incredible | Verdict against weight of evidence due to conflicting testimony and explanation of prescriptions | Weight claim waived as 1925(b) statement too vague; alternatively, trial court did not abuse discretion in weighing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of favorable evidence violates due process)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 14 A.3d 89 (Pa. 2011) (vehicle stops permitted on reasonable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 941 A.2d 14 (Pa.Super. 2008) (standard of review for suppression denial)
- Commonwealth v. Weaver, 76 A.3d 562 (Pa.Super. 2013) (probable cause supported by citizen tip, officer observations, and failed HGN)
- Commonwealth v. Feese, 79 A.3d 1101 (Pa.Super. 2013) (no due process violation absent bad faith in failure to preserve evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403 (Pa. 2003) (appellate review of weight challenge limited to abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Angel, 946 A.2d 115 (Pa.Super. 2008) (definition of probable cause to arrest for DUI)
- Commonwealth v. Reeves, 907 A.2d 1 (Pa.Super. 2006) (requirements for Rule 1925(b) concise statement)
- Commonwealth v. Flores, 921 A.2d 517 (Pa.Super. 2007) (general/skeletal 1925(b) statements-waiver of sufficiency/weight claims)