Com. v. Vaughn, P., Com. v. Vaughn, P. No. 1828 MDA 2016

At ~2:00 a.m., Patrolman Eiker in uniform and a marked patrol car observed a silver Ford F-150 (driven by Vaughn) weave over the fog line and pull out into traffic.
Eiker activated emergency lights and later siren; Vaughn did not stop immediately and drove approximately 1–1.2 miles, passing about ten locations where he could have pulled over safely, before turning into a private driveway and stopping.
After exiting the vehicle, Vaughn was ordered to the ground, handcuffed, and placed in the patrol car; he acted belligerently while restrained.
A jury convicted Vaughn of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer (3rd-degree felony), DUI (1st-degree misdemeanor), and driving with a suspended license (summary). Trial court sentenced Vaughn to consecutive terms totaling incarceration on August 18, 2016.
Post-sentence motions raising sufficiency and weight of the evidence claims were denied; Vaughn appealed only the fleeing/eluding convictions for insufficiency and weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: Whether evidence proved Vaughn willfully failed to stop after visual/audible signals	Commonwealth: Patrolman Eiker (in uniform/marked car) gave visual and audible signals; Vaughn continued 1–1.2 miles past multiple safe pull-over locations, so the evidence supports willful failure to stop.	Vaughn: He did not willfully elude; he drove at or near speed limit, did not accelerate or make evasive maneuvers, and drove only a short distance to reach a place he knew was safe to stop.	Court: Evidence sufficient; willfulness satisfied by failure to stop after clear signals and passing available pull-over spots.
Weight: Whether verdict was against the weight of the evidence given Vaughn’s claimed safety concern	Commonwealth: Jury credited officer testimony over defendant; no shock to sense of justice.	Vaughn: Claimed good-faith concern for personal safety excusing immediate stop due to darkness, lighting, and possible encroachment into traffic if he pulled over.	Court: Denied new trial; assessment of credibility is jury’s role and verdict did not shock the conscience.

Commonwealth v. Lynch, 72 A.3d 706 (discussing sufficiency review standard)
Commonwealth v. Markman, 916 A.2d 586 (Commonwealth may rely on circumstantial evidence)
Commonwealth v. Bowen, 55 A.3d 1254 (good-faith safety concern is an affirmative defense that bears on weight, not sufficiency)
Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 30 A.3d 381 (standard for review of weight-of-the-evidence claims)
Commonwealth v. Chambers, 599 A.2d 630 (credibility determinations are for the fact-finder)