Commonwealth v. Cruz
71 A.3d 998
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Appellant Juan Cruz was convicted by jury of DUI, aggravated assault by vehicle while DUI, homicide by vehicle while DUI, failure to stop, causing an accident while not properly licensed, simple assault, involuntary manslaughter, and REAP.
- A blue 1990 Oldsmobile Toronado struck Evelyn (15) and Lynda (4) Hernandez on May 8, 2004; Lynda died, Evelyn survived in a coma.
- Witnesses described a driver with a mustache in a burgundy or dark car; damage was consistent with a high-speed impact.
- Evidence included Evelyn’s sneakers and blue barrettes, drag marks, and a blue ball found under the windshield; BAC evidence showed intoxication.
- Police linked the Toronado to Appellant after midnight May 9, 2004; Appellant allegedly admitted ownership, stated he had been in an accident, and that he was drunk.
- Dr. Richard Cohn testified that Appellant’s BAC was at least 0.08% at the time of the accident based on a 0.232% reading at 7:20 a.m. on May 9, 2004.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of statements at doorbell questioning | Cruz argues statements were coercive, without Miranda warnings, and made while incoherent. | Commonwealth maintains statements were voluntary, not custodial interrogation, and not coerced. | Statements either spontaneous or voluntary; no custodial interrogation; suppression denied. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for DUI and related offenses given BAC timing | Relies on eleven-hour gap; contends no relation-back evidence supports BAC at driving time. | Modern DUI law does not require strict relation-back in this context; Dr. Cohn’s testimony suffices. | Evidence sufficient to sustain DUI and related offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Weight of the evidence and challenged BAC testimony | Relies on perceived weaknesses in expert testimony and chain of custody. | Weight issues must be raised below; not preserved for review; credibility for jury. | Weight claim waived; no reversal on weight. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.Q.M., 873 A.2d 752 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard for suppression of statements; custody/ interrogation analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Zogby, 689 A.2d 280 (Pa. Super. 1997) (custodial interrogation analysis at home; statements suppression)
- Commonwealth v. Heggins, 809 A.2d 908 (Pa. Super. 2002) (definition of interrogation; gratuitous statements)
- Commonwealth v. Milligan, 693 A.2d 1313 (Pa. Super. 1997) (voluntariness with intoxication; weight not suppression)
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 749 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2000) (relation-back issues post-3731/3802 transition)
- Commonwealth v. Barud, 681 A.2d 162 (Pa. 1996) (statutory changes to DUI proof; relation-back evidentiary issues)