Commonwealth v. Diehl
140 A.3d 34
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- At ~12:40 a.m. on April 27, 2013, Loganville Fire Chief Rodney Miller parked a marked pickup diagonally across I‑83 with flashing emergency lights to close southbound lanes for a medevac landing.
- Matthew Diehl (Appellant) was driving an SUV southbound, struck and killed Chief Miller after entering the right lane; investigators estimated impact speed 41–59 mph and found no braking marks.
- Troopers detected alcohol on Diehl; a blood draw at 1:56 a.m. showed BAC .118. Diehl initially told officers he hit a deer and left the immediate scene, later expressing confusion and remorse.
- Diehl was charged with multiple counts, including Homicide by Vehicle while DUI, Homicide by Vehicle, Accidents Involving Death or Personal Injury, DUI offenses, and Third‑Degree Murder (acquitted on that count). Jury convicted on the vehicular homicide and DUI counts.
- Before trial the Commonwealth sought to admit Diehl’s prior DUI convictions (2005 Pennsylvania; 2007 Maryland) and DUI education. The trial court admitted a stipulation limited to the 2005 conviction only for the narrow purpose of showing Diehl received DUI education about risks of drinking and driving.
- At sentencing the court imposed consecutive sentences for Homicide by Vehicle, Homicide by Vehicle‑DUI, and Accidents Involving Death; Diehl appealed both the 404(b) evidence ruling and the consecutive sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 2005 DUI conviction/education under Pa.R.E. 404(b) | Admission was more prejudicial than probative; it improperly suggested propensity and negated lesser mental states (accident/ordinary negligence) | Prior DUI and DUI‑education show specialized knowledge of risks and are probative of malice, intent, and absence of mistake | Admissible in limited form: stipulation that Appellant pleaded to a DUI and attended four DUI classes about alcohol effects; probative value outweighed prejudice |
| Sentencing — consecutive terms for related vehicular offenses | Consecutive sentences are excessive for a single course of conduct and court ignored mitigating circumstances | Offenses involved distinct culpable conduct (drinking, disregarding emergency roadblock, leaving scene); consecutive sentences within guidelines appropriate | No abuse of discretion; no substantial question raised and sentences affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Flamer, 53 A.3d 82 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings and abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Briggs, 12 A.3d 291 (Pa. 2011) (Rule 404(b) probative/prejudice balancing requirement)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 42 A.3d 1017 (Pa. 2012) (prior acts admissible to show malice, motive, intent)
- Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483 (Pa. 2009) (prejudice standard for other‑acts evidence that might inflame the jury)
- United States v. Tan, 254 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2001) (prior DUI convictions admissible to prove malice in vehicular homicide)
- United States v. Fleming, 739 F.2d 945 (4th Cir. 1984) (driving record admissible to show defendant’s awareness of DUI risks)
- Commonwealth v. Kinard, 95 A.3d 279 (Pa. Super. 2014) (factors for Rule 404(b) balancing)
- Commonwealth v. Collins, 764 A.2d 1056 (Pa. 2001) (Homicide by Vehicle and Homicide by Vehicle‑DUI do not merge for sentencing purposes)