Commonwealth v. Allen
24 A.3d 1058
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Allen was convicted of DUI (General Impairment and Highest Rate), involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment, careless driving, and turning left after a fatal motorcycle crash.
- Sentencing: two DUI counts merged; total term 33 to 66 months; aggravated-range sentencing.
- Blood sample for BAC was drawn, then destroyed pursuant to hospital procedure; defense sought court-ordered preservation for independent testing.
- Hospital testified on chain of custody and testing procedures; defense movant sought independent testing but the sample was destroyed.
- Trial court denied relief; defense appeals alleging spoliation, sentencing merger error, and discretionary sentencing abuse.
- Court upheld admission of BAC and denied merger under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9765; affirmed the aggravated-range sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| admissibility of BAC evidence | Allen argues spoliation warrants relief and testing was essential. | Commonwealth shows no bad faith and evidence not necessarily exculpatory. | No due-process violation; destruction was hospital policy; no bad faith; evidence not materially exculpatory. |
| merger of DUI and involuntary manslaughter for sentencing | DUI and manslaughter should merge under Huckleberry. | Amendment to § 9765 requires elements-based test; no merger. | No merger; Baldwin-based elements test controls; separate elements remain. |
| discretionary-sentencing challenge | Sentence excessive, aggravated-range, tied to impermissible factors. | Court properly exercised discretion with multiple factors; no abuse. | No abuse; court adequately weighed factors; remarks not sole basis for sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Snyder, 963 A.2d 396 (Pa. 2009) (bad faith required for destruction of potentially useful evidence; no due-process violation here)
- Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 985 A.2d 830 (Pa. 2009) (elements-based test; §9765 prevents merger unless all elements overlap)
- Commonwealth v. Huckleberry, 631 A.2d 1329 (Pa.Super. 1993) (merger principle for DUI and involuntary manslaughter; not always merger)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 920 A.2d 887 (Pa.Super. 2007) (plenary review for merger; test for sentencing-merger questions)
- Commonwealth v. Payne, 868 A.2d 1257 (Pa.Super. 2005) (questions of whether offenses arise from single transaction merge; elements test flavor)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 13 (Pa.Super. 1988) (broad discretion in sentencing; purpose to protect public and rehabilitate)