Com. v. Stouffer, S.
878 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 4, 2018Background
- Scott Allen Stouffer was charged and convicted (after de novo trial in common pleas) of driving while his operating privilege was suspended for a prior DUI; sentenced to 60–90 days (trial court imposed 90 days) plus fines and costs.
- On July 12, 2016, two probation officers observed Stouffer exit 21 Park Drive, get into a white Ford pickup, back out and drive down Park Drive until out of sight; officers estimated travel from ~40 yards up to 200–300 feet.
- A defense witness (employee Treigh Mason) testified Stouffer drove a short distance (20 yards per his later testimony) to a nearby farm, and another employee later moved the truck to the workplace.
- At the close of evidence defense counsel moved (and argued) that the conduct was de minimis under 18 Pa.C.S. § 312; the trial court interrupted, rejected the de minimis argument, and announced guilt.
- On appeal Stouffer raised: (1) insufficient proof of actual notice of suspension (waived on appeal), (2) violation of due process because the court began announcing its verdict before full argument and curtailed counsel, and (3) that the offense was de minimis.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commonwealth proved Appellant had actual notice of license suspension | Stouffer contended lack of actual notice of suspension | Commonwealth relied on record showing suspension (but issue not preserved) | Waived on appeal for failure to preserve in Rule 1925(b) statement |
| Whether trial court violated due process by beginning to announce verdict and cutting off defense argument | Stouffer argued the court signaled it would not listen and interrupted counsel, prejudicing his right to be heard | Trial court allowed counsel to argue when requested and rejected the de minimis argument after hearing it | No due process violation; counsel had opportunity to be heard |
| Whether the conduct was de minimis under 18 Pa.C.S. § 312 | Stouffer argued the travel was very brief, on a lightly traveled road, and akin to customary farm-tolerance | Commonwealth/trial court emphasized legislative intent to strictly enforce DUI suspensions; brief travel still violates statute | Not de minimis; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Guthrie, 616 A.2d 1019 (Pa. Super. 1992) (legislative intent to strictly enforce DUI suspensions)
- Commonwealth v. Eliason, 509 A.2d 1296 (Pa. Super. 1986) (brief operation on a public highway is not necessarily de minimis)
- Commonwealth v. Poncala, 915 A.2d 97 (Pa. Super. 2006) (failure to raise issue in 1925(b) statement results in waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Parks, 768 A.2d 1168 (Pa. Super. 2001) (due process guarantees opportunity to be heard)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119 (Pa. 2008) (scope of due process review)
- Commonwealth v. Thompson, 281 A.2d 856 (Pa. 1971) (court’s premature interruption that deprived defendant of hearing can violate due process)
- Commonwealth v. Campbell, 417 A.2d 712 (Pa. Super. 1980) (seriousness of offense not always measured by minimal harm)