Com. v. Taylor, M.
852 EDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Oct 17, 2017Background
- On Oct 27, 2015 Trooper Puopolo stopped a Jeep driven by Martha Taylor after observing it cross the double yellow line and nearly strike his cruiser.
- Observations: bloodshot, glassy, constricted pupils; slow, sluggish movements; unsteady gait; disoriented; failed a horizontal gaze nystagmus test; used a cane.
- Taylor told officers she had taken prescription phenobarbital (and later admitted cyclobenzaprine and tramadol) earlier that day; she was sleepy, talkative at times, and emotional.
- Bench trial (notes reflect Nov 23, 2016) resulted in convictions for DUI (controlled substance/impaired ability), disregarding traffic lane, and careless driving; record contains multiple inconsistencies among docket entries, trial transcript, and sentencing documents.
- Because of contradictory sentencing entries (and inability to determine the actual sentence), the Superior Court affirmed convictions but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing and correction of the record.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's / Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: DUI impaired ability based on observed signs and admission of taking medication | Taylor: Evidence insufficient — only a single lane crossing and her admission of taking prescribed medication; signs explained by mobility/age and medication side effects | Commonwealth: Combined observations (driving, physical signs, failed HGN, admission) proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt | Conviction for DUI affirmed — evidence sufficient under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(2) and precedent (Diggs, Griffith) |
| Admissibility: Taylor’s statement she took medication (corpus delicti rule) | Taylor: Statement improperly admitted in violation of corpus delicti rule | Commonwealth: Not detailed in opinion; issue not preserved for appeal | Waived for failure to raise in Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement |
| Need for expert to link observed signs to phenobarbital intoxication | Taylor: Commonwealth needed an expert to show signs were consistent with phenobarbital impairment | Commonwealth: Argued observations and officer experience suffice; no expert required | Waived for failure to raise in Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement |
| Legality / clarity of sentence and record accuracy | Taylor: Challenged sentence; record ambiguous about disposition and terms | Commonwealth: Record inconsistencies noted but no persuasive clarification provided | Sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing and correction of the certified record (court found record too inconsistent to review legality) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873 (Pa. 2008) (standard for sufficiency review and upholding conviction on circumstantial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Griffith, 32 A.3d 1231 (Pa. 2011) (DUI conviction supported by officer observations and defendant’s statement of drug use)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (limits on warrantless blood draws without consent, warrant, or exigency)
- Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appellant’s duty to ensure transmission of a complete record for appellate review)
- Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (issues not raised in Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) are waived)
- Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203 (Pa. Super. 1998) (appellate review of sentences governed by 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781)
- Commonwealth v. Randal, 837 A.2d 1211 (Pa. Super. 2003) (illegal sentences may be reviewed sua sponte and must be vacated)