Com. v. Smith, D.
1980 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 21, 2016Background
- On April 10, 2015, Trooper Karinchak observed David Smith riding a bicycle in the center of the right lane on a busy divided highway with ~20–25 cars behind him.
- As the trooper passed, Smith removed both hands from the handlebars and extended his middle fingers toward the trooper.
- The trooper stopped Smith, released him, and Smith continued riding and repeated the gesture. The trooper issued a citation for careless driving (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3714(a)).
- Smith was found guilty before the magisterial district judge, appealed, and a de novo trial was held in the Court of Common Pleas.
- At the de novo hearing, the trooper testified he observed Smith had no means to steer or brake while hands were off the bars and that this endangered others; Smith testified he could steer by leaning and removed his hands to give the trooper the finger because the trooper was gawking.
- The trial court credited the trooper’s testimony and convicted Smith of careless driving; Smith appealed to the Superior Court challenging sufficiency of the evidence and asserting a First Amendment claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: Did evidence prove careless driving under § 3714(a)? | Commonwealth: Trooper’s testimony shows Smith rode on a busy highway, removed hands from handlebars, lacked means to steer/brake, endangering others. | Smith: Trooper only showed a possibility, not probability, of harm; non-expert speculation insufficient; Smith could steer by leaning/pedaling. | Affirmed. Credible trooper testimony supported finding of careless disregard; trial court credited trooper over Smith. |
| First Amendment: Was citation for expressive gesture protected speech? | Smith: Citation penalized obscene gesture, infringing his free-speech rights. | Commonwealth: Citation was for dangerous conduct (removing hands, inability to steer), not for the gesture itself. | Rejected. Court held citation based on conduct (lack of control), not the gesture; no merit to constitutional claim. |
| Credibility deference: Should appellate court reweigh witness credibility? | Smith: Implicitly argues trooper’s testimony insufficient, inviting reexamination. | Commonwealth: Trial court’s credibility determinations control. | Affirmed. Appellate court defers to trial court’s credibility findings. |
| Definition of "careless disregard": Applied standard? | Smith: Argued conduct did not meet more-than-negligence standard. | Commonwealth: Conduct (no steering/braking on busy road) meets careless-disregard (less than wanton, more than ordinary negligence). | Affirmed. Court applied standard and concluded conduct met careless-disregard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Widmer v. Commonwealth, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (sufficiency review standard and viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner)
- Karkaria v. Commonwealth, 625 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1993) (evidence must establish each material element beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Santana v. Commonwealth, 333 A.2d 876 (Pa. 1975) (evidence in contradiction to physical facts or human experience is insufficient)
- Chambers v. Commonwealth, 599 A.2d 630 (Pa. 1991) (appellate review gives prosecution benefit of reasonable inferences)
- Morgan v. Commonwealth, 913 A.2d 906 (Pa. Super. 2006) (application of sufficiency principles)
- Gezovich v. Commonwealth, 7 A.3d 300 (Pa. Super. 2010) (definition of careless disregard under § 3714)
- Zugay v. Commonwealth, 745 A.2d 639 (Pa. Super. 1990) (credibility determinations are for the factfinder)