Com. v. Thomas, A.
418 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 22, 2016Background
- Early morning April 12, 2015, a silver Chrysler 300 with vanity plate “Ms. Thomas” struck a parked tractor‑trailer in Fayette County; the driver had fled the scene.
- Troopers found Angela Thomas about a half‑mile away, staggering, with bloodshot eyes and the odor of alcohol; she initially refused to answer questions at contact.
- Thomas was returned to the crash scene, admitted to an officer that she had been the vehicle’s operator, and performed poorly on field sobriety tests; she refused further testing.
- At Uniontown Hospital officers read O’Connell (implied‑consent) warnings and requested a blood draw; Thomas argued she wanted a breath test, became belligerent, and declined the blood draw.
- A jury convicted Thomas of DUI, driving while BAC .02%+ with license suspended, disregarding a traffic lane, and careless driving; the court sentenced her to three years County Intermediate Punishment.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Thomas' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to prove driving/actual physical control while intoxicated | Circumstantial and direct evidence (vehicle ID, location, admission to officer, sobriety indicators) suffice to prove she operated the vehicle | Evidence insufficient to prove she drove or was in actual physical control | Affirmed: evidence (admission + circumstances) sufficient to prove operation/actual control |
| Sufficiency to prove refusal to submit to chemical testing | Troopers read O’Connell warnings; Thomas argued, was belligerent, insisted on a breath test, and declined blood—conduct equals refusal | Three to four minutes’ discussion was too short for comprehension; not an unequivocal refusal | Affirmed: any response less than unqualified, unequivocal assent is refusal; her conduct was refusal |
| Motion for mistrial based on testimony that Thomas initially refused to speak | Testimony described investigatory silence during initial contact as part of crash investigation, not used to imply guilt | Testimony violated Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and warranted mistrial | Affirmed denial: passing reference to silence in investigative context did not deprive fair trial; no prejudicial error |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Devine, 26 A.3d 1139 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard for sufficiency review and circumstantial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 833 A.2d 260 (Pa. Super. 2003) (definition of “operate” and actual physical control)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 660 A.2d 105 (Pa. Super. 1995) (framework for operation/actual control)
- Commonwealth v. Woodruff, 668 A.2d 1158 (Pa. Super. 1995) (totality of circumstances for actual physical control)
- Todd v. Commonwealth, 723 A.2d 655 (Pa. 1999) (anything less than unqualified, unequivocal assent is refusal)
- Commonwealth v. Renwick, 669 A.2d 934 (Pa. 1996) (refusal standard)
- Dep’t of Transp. v. Gross, 605 A.2d 433 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (failure to supply sufficient breath sample equals refusal)
- Murray v. Commonwealth, 598 A.2d 1356 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (assent requirement)
- Colgan v. Com., Dep’t of Trans., 561 A.2d 1341 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (insistence on unconventional sample is refusal)
- Com. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Ingram, 648 A.2d 285 (Pa. 1994) (affirming refusal finding)
- Commonwealth v. Adams, 104 A.3d 511 (Pa. 2014) (mere reference to silence not necessarily unconstitutional)
- Commonwealth v. Hogentogler, 53 A.3d 866 (Pa. Super. 2012) (review of mistrial denial is abuse of discretion standard)