Com. v. Rumble, M.
1421 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 6, 2016Background
- At ~2:30 a.m. on April 13, 2014, Sgt. Pocsatko observed Michael Rumble fail to stop at two stop signs and make turns without signaling; he initiated a traffic stop and encountered Rumble and a front-seat passenger.
- Officer detected a strong alcohol odor, red/glassy eyes; Rumble admitted to having "a few beers."
- Officer observed an open case of Bud Light on the passenger-side floor and the passenger holding an open can; no cans were observed on the driver’s side.
- Rumble performed and failed standardized field sobriety tests; officer opined Rumble was incapable of safe driving.
- Blood drawn ~3:55 a.m. tested by the lab showed BAC of 0.223% ± .010; defense expert challenged collection, transport, and lab methodology but offered no quantitative alternative to the BAC result.
- Jury convicted Rumble of general impairment (75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1)), high-BAC offense (§ 3802(c)), and related summary offenses; court sentenced him to 4–23 months. Rumble appealed, raising (1) a Rule in Limine denial re: beer-in-vehicle testimony, and (2) sufficiency of the evidence for the general-impairment conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Rumble) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for general-impairment DUI (incapable of safely driving) | Evidence (failed FSTs, officer observations, Rumble admission, high BAC) supports conviction. | Driving behavior (proper turns, straight driving, prompt stop, handing documents) undermines incapacity finding; evidence insufficient. | Affirmed — viewed in Commonwealth's favor, FSTs, admissions, and BAC supported conviction. |
| Admissibility of testimony about beer in vehicle | Beer and open container in vehicle are relevant to prove drinking while driving for general-impairment charge; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice. | Beer was connected to passenger only; evidence irrelevant or unduly prejudicial and should have been excluded. | Affirmed — evidence relevant to general-impairment theory and not unfairly prejudicial; any error would be harmless given other strong evidence (admission, FSTs, very high BAC). |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Segida, 985 A.2d 871 (Pa. 2009) (defines elements and proof for general-impairment DUI)
- Commonwealth v. Kemble, 605 A.2d 1240 (Pa. Super. 1992) (distinguishes relevance of behavioral evidence in specific-BAC vs. general-impairment prosecutions)
- Commonwealth v. Poplawski, 130 A.3d 697 (Pa. 2015) (harmless-error standard for criminal convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Valette, 613 A.2d 548 (Pa. 1992) (constructive possession may be shared where area is of joint control)
- Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657 (Pa. 2014) (insignificant evidence compared to overwhelming proof cannot have contributed to verdict)