Com. v. Orlowski, A.
393 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- On Feb. 1, 2015, in icy/rainy conditions, a one-vehicle crash occurred when Quade Karas slid off the road and rolled his truck; shortly after, the Appellee stopped nearby, exited his vehicle, which then rolled down the hill and crashed into a tree.
- Appellee briefly left the scene in another motorist's car, went to a bar he owned about a half-mile away, and (he later admitted) drank 18 shots within 15–20 minutes after the crash.
- Trooper Demchak arrived ~20 minutes after the first crash; Appellee returned, admitted to being drunk, and told the trooper he had consumed three beers before driving and 18 shots after the accident.
- Appellee was arrested and a blood draw at ~5:55 p.m. (about 90 minutes after the crash) showed a BAC of 0.255%.
- The trial court quashed the criminal information charging two counts of DUI (general impairment under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1) and highest rate under § 3802(c)); Judge Olson dissented, arguing the Commonwealth made a prima facie showing at the preliminary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Appellee) | Held (Judge Olson's view in dissent) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commonwealth established a prima facie case for DUI — general impairment ( § 3802(a)(1)) at the preliminary hearing | Evidence (Appellee admitted drinking before crash; vehicle rolled after Appellee exited; he fled briefly; later admitted drunkenness; BAC 0.255%) suffices to show impairment and nexus to driving | Appellee pointed to post-driving consumption (18 shots) and adverse road conditions as alternative explanations for the accident and elevated BAC | Prima facie case established — the facts and reasonable inferences support that Appellee was impaired when he operated/exited the vehicle; credibility and weight are for the factfinder |
| Whether the Commonwealth established a prima facie case for DUI — highest rate ( § 3802(c)) given post-driving drinking | BAC of 0.255% within two hours plus admissions of drinking before driving supports that Appellee’s BAC reached the statutory threshold within two hours of driving | Appellee argued post-driving consumption could account for the high BAC and so the Commonwealth cannot link the BAC to driving | Prima facie case established — post-driving drinking is a matter for the factfinder; no categorical “drinking-after-driving” defense at preliminary hearing stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Landis, 48 A.3d 432 (Pa. Super. 2015) (preliminary-hearing prima facie standard: evidence viewed in Commonwealth's favor; credibility/weight not considered)
- Commonwealth v. Zugay, 745 A.2d 639 (Pa. Super. 2000) (§ 3802(a)(1) is a general provision; BAC may be used to prove general impairment even if it cannot be related back precisely to time of driving)
- Commonwealth v. Segida, 985 A.2d 871 (Pa. 2009) (upholding general-impairment conviction where defendant admitted drinking before loss of control and had a very high BAC)
- Commonwealth v. Duda, 923 A.2d 1138 (Pa. 2007) (for § 3802(c), actus reus is driving after drinking a sufficient amount to reach prohibited BAC within two hours; post-driving drinking is considered by factfinder but does not create a categorical defense)