Com. v. Sanders, K., 2021 Pa. Super. 163

SEPTA driver Katrina Sanders, operating a tandem bus on April 2, 2016, made a left turn and struck a 93‑year‑old pedestrian who was lawfully in a marked crosswalk, killing him.
Bus surveillance showed Sanders reading route paperwork while stopped at a red light, stopped over the white stop line (in the crosswalk), and had an unobstructed view of the intersection for about 45 seconds before moving.
When the light turned green she waited ~2.33 seconds (SEPTA policy required a 4‑second scan), turned one‑handed while holding paperwork, and the bus was moving ~8 mph at impact; investigator found no mechanical or environmental contributing factors.
Sanders was convicted after a bench trial of homicide by vehicle, careless driving (including unintentional death), failure to yield, and improper movement; acquitted of reckless driving and improper left turn.
The Superior Court (en banc) reversed the homicide‑by‑vehicle conviction, holding the evidence insufficient to prove the required mental state (recklessness/gross negligence), and remanded for resentencing on the remaining counts.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Sanders's Argument	Held
1) Does Sanders’s acquittal of reckless driving bar homicide by vehicle?	Acquittal of a predicate reckless driving count does not preclude homicide by vehicle; separate elements.	Acquittal of reckless driving forecloses the homicide‑by‑vehicle conviction.	Not reached on merits; court disposed of appeal by resolving sufficiency issue in Sanders’s favor.
2) Was the evidence sufficient to prove homicide by vehicle (i.e., that Sanders acted recklessly or with gross negligence)?	Violations of Vehicle Code, SEPTA policy breaches, surveillance, and expert testimony show Sanders consciously disregarded a substantial risk and thus acted recklessly/grossly negligently.	Conduct amounted to careless driving/ordinary negligence (reading route paperwork while stopped; momentary failure to observe); not conscious disregard of a substantial, unjustifiable risk.	Held insufficient: evidence supported careless driving but not the conscious disregard (recklessness/gross negligence) required for homicide by vehicle; conviction reversed.
3) Did the trial court err in admitting the Commonwealth’s crash‑reconstruction expert testimony that Sanders acted recklessly?	Expert testimony was admissible and supported recklessness.	Expert opinion improperly characterized negligence as recklessness.	Not addressed on merits because insufficiency ruling resolved the case.

Commonwealth v. Huggins, 836 A.2d 862 (Pa. 2003) (Supreme Court holds recklessness and gross negligence are equivalent mental states for involuntary manslaughter and explains recklessness definition).
Commonwealth v. Grimes, 842 A.2d 432 (Pa. Super. 2004) (applies Huggins to homicide by vehicle).
Commonwealth v. Matroni, 923 A.2d 444 (Pa. Super. 2007) (interprets gross negligence/recklessness in vehicular homicide context).
Commonwealth v. Bullick, 830 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. 2003) (recklessness requires awareness and conscious disregard of substantial risk).
Commonwealth v. Gilliland, 422 A.2d 206 (Pa. Super. 1980) (analogous holding: failure to perceive hazard is lack of awareness, not recklessness).
Commonwealth v. Heck, 491 A.2d 212 (Pa. Super. 1985) (distinguishes recklessness from criminal negligence).
Commonwealth v. Bostian, 232 A.3d 898 (Pa. Super. 2020) (panel decision applying Huggins framework to homicide by vehicle).
Commonwealth v. Goldhammer, 517 A.2d 1280 (Pa. 1986) (sentencing principle: vacate all sentences in multi‑count case when one sentence is erroneous to allow full resentencing).