Commonwealth v. Barker
70 A.3d 849
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Barker observed tailgating, expired registration and inspection; officer noted odor of cooking grease, flushed appearance, pinpoint pupils, slow speech, and combative demeanor.
- Barker failed field sobriety tests (heel-to-toe, finger-to-nose) but officer declined immediate breath test and transported to hospital for blood draw.
- Barker refused the blood test due to medical concerns (brittle diabetic, prior infection from injections) and requested alternative tests (breath, urine, hair) which officer refused.
- Barker’s driver’s license and ID were retained by the officer; later, Barker’s sister retrieved his license after the stop.
- Trial proceeded non-jury; Barker’s sister and Barker testified, corroborating health concerns and instances of delay in obtaining test appointments.
- Trial court convicted Barker of DUI under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(2) and summary charge; Barker appealed contending insufficient evidence and improper handling of an alternative test.]
- Issues are whether (1) the evidence was legally sufficient to convict Barker of DUI (d2) and (2) the officer violated § 1547(i) by not honoring an alternative testing request, depriving Barker of admissible evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for DUI | Barker | Barker argues testing gaps and lack of drugs negate DUI | Evidence adequate to sustain conviction |
| Right to alternate testing under § 1547(i) | Barker | Officer could refuse alternate testing; no binding right | Officer violated § 1547(i); conviction reversed; Barker discharged |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308 (Pa. 2000) (sufficiency standard; evidence in light of all inferences)
- Commonwealth v. Brewer, 876 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Super. 2005) (evidence need not be mathematically certain; totality governs)
- Commonwealth v. Aguado, 760 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2000) (circumstantial evidence admissible to prove guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Bybel, 611 A.2d 189 (Pa. 1992) (guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt; cannot rely on conjecture)
- Commonwealth v. Murphy, 795 A.2d 1025 (Pa. Super. 2002) (credibility and weight of testimonial evidence are for the fact-finder)
- Commonwealth v. Ragan, 652 A.2d 925 (Pa. Super. 1995) (field sobriety tests support impairment inference)
- Cranberry Park Assocs’ ex rel. Viola v. Cranberry Tp. ZHB, 751 A.2d 165 (Pa. 2000) (shall = mandatory; testing rights construed)
- Commonwealth v. Hunzer, 868 A.2d 498 (Pa. Super. 2005) (fact-finder credibility; test admissibility interplay)