Commonwealth v. Beck
78 A.3d 656
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- On July 3, 2010, police at a sobriety checkpoint stopped Beck after he failed to stop at a stop sign; officer observed odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slowed speech.
- Beck performed field sobriety tests (alphabet, walk-and-turn, one-leg stand) with observable failures; a preliminary breath test was positive.
- Beck consented to a blood draw at the checkpoint; chemical testing showed blood alcohol content of .125.
- At a non-jury trial on May 7, 2012, the Commonwealth moved at the close of its case to amend the information to add a DUI — high rate (.10–.16) charge; the court allowed the amendment.
- The trial court convicted Beck of DUI (general impairment), DUI (high rate), and stop-sign violation; sentence was three to six months’ intermediate punishment (merged sentence), fines and costs.
- Beck appealed, raising (1) confrontation clause challenge for not calling the blood analyst who performed the test, and (2) prejudice from the late amendment adding the high-rate DUI count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation clause — admission of blood test report without testimony of the analyst | Commonwealth: report admissible under controlling Superior Court precedent (Yohe); lab analyst’s absence did not bar admission | Beck: admission violated his confrontation rights because the analyst who performed testing did not testify | Court held no relief — Beck conceded facts mirror Yohe and must follow Superior Court precedent pending Supreme Court decision |
| Late amendment of criminal information to add DUI (high rate) at close of Commonwealth’s case | Commonwealth: amendment permissible because the high-rate charge arose from same factual scenario and Beck had prior notice from various filings | Beck: amendment added an element without adequate notice, prejudicing defense strategy and expert preparation | Court held amendment proper — record showed Beck had notice; no specific prejudice shown and defense cross-examined expert extensively |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Yohe, 39 A.3d 381 (Pa. Super. 2012) (Superior Court held blood-alcohol report admissible despite absence of the analyst who performed the test)
- Commonwealth v. Mentzer, 18 A.3d 1200 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standards for permitting amendment of criminal information; factors to assess prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Sinclair, 897 A.2d 1218 (Pa. Super. 2006) (amendment appropriate only when charges arise from same factual situation)
- Commonwealth v. Davalos, 779 A.2d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2001) (framework for notice and prejudice in amended charges)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 649 A.2d 453 (Pa. Super. 1994) (panel bound by prior Superior Court precedent)