Com. v. Vukov, J.
Com. v. Vukov, J. No. 1374 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- On March 3, 2016, school bus driver Megan Stambaugh activated amber lights, then red lights and extended the stop arm while making a final stop on Lewisberry Road; she testified a Jeep driven by Joseph Vukov began passing as the red lights were activated.
- Stambaugh reported the incident to police under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3345(b); Officer McBreen identified Vukov by plate and issued a citation for illegally passing a school bus.
- At the summary appeal hearing, Stambaugh testified she saw Vukov following closely and begin to pass when the red lights were illuminated and the stop arm extended.
- Vukov testified he followed closely out of frustration, moved into the opposite lane to pass after seeing no oncoming traffic, saw amber lights begin to flash while already committed to the pass, and denied seeing red lights or the stop arm.
- The trial court convicted Vukov of Overtaking a School Bus (75 Pa.C.S. § 3345); Vukov appealed arguing insufficient evidence and improper admission of his inculpatory statements under the corpus delicti rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Vukov) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3345 | Stambaugh’s credible testimony established Vukov passed the bus after red lights and stop arm were activated | Vukov claimed he began passing when only amber lights were on and was committed to the pass; denied seeing red lights/stop arm | Court: Evidence sufficient; factfinder could credit bus driver and conclude Vukov failed to exercise required caution |
| Admission of inculpatory statements under corpus delicti rule | Commonwealth argued circumstantial evidence (driver’s testimony, tailgating, report) established corpus delicti | Vukov argued Commonwealth failed to prove corpus delicti (could not show ten-foot distance or that crime occurred) | Court: No error; corpus delicti established by circumstantial evidence and Schlegel controls — statements admissible and supported by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Schlegel, 845 A.2d 759 (Pa. 2004) (a motorist who proceeds after clear amber/red warnings and stop arm may not avoid liability; corpus delicti can be shown circumstantially)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 39 A.3d 406 (Pa. Super. 2012) (explains corpus delicti rule and two-step proof standard for admission and consideration of statements)
- Commonwealth v. Lutes, 793 A.2d 949 (Pa. Super. 2002) (standard of review for de novo summary conviction hearings)
- Commonwealth v. Parks, 768 A.2d 1168 (Pa. Super. 2001) (appellate review standard — abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Marizzaldi, 814 A.2d 249 (Pa. Super. 2002) (discussion of appellate scope of review on summary convictions)