Commonwealth v. Dunphy
20 A.3d 1215
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Dunphy, intoxicated, struck and killed 20-year-old Hannah Cintron crossing Delaware Ave at midnight; speed ~60 mph on a 35 mph road; BAC .183% at testing; he fled the scene and was later arrested.
- Prosecution charged Dunphy with third-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, homicide by vehicle, DUI, accident involving death, and related offenses.
- Prosecution and defense presented eyewitness testimony (Wright, Stickel) and defense/forensic expert testimony (Cohn) on crash dynamics, speed, and impairment.
- Dunphy admitted alcohol consumption at a bar, stated he was drunk and that he saw pedestrians but sped up to make the light; officer testimony noted strong odor of alcohol.
- The jury found Dunphy guilty of third-degree murder after he pled guilty to DUI and accident involving death; trial court sentenced Dunphy to 7–14 years for murder, 1–2 years consecutive for accident involving death, and 6 months probation for DUI.
- Appellant timely appealed challenging sufficiency of the malice element for third-degree murder and the discretionary aspects of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for malice in third-degree murder | Commonwealth: malice shown by intoxication, excessive speed, admission, flight; totality proves disregard. | Dunphy: no malice evidence showing conscious disregard for life. | Evidence supports malice; conviction affirmed. |
| Discretionary aspects of sentencing | - | Sentence challenged as excessive; asserts 7–14 years inconsistent with gravity. | No substantial question; discretionary denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa.Super.2006) (sufficiency review v. credibility and circumstantial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Santos, 876 A.2d 360 (Pa.2005) (malice in third-degree murder definition)
- Commonwealth v. DiStefano, 782 A.2d 574 (Pa.Super.2001) (malice defined; consciousness of high risk)
- Commonwealth v. Cottam, 616 A.2d 988 (Pa.Super.1992) (malice—general principles)
- Commonwealth v. Thomas, 656 A.2d 514 (Pa.Super.1995) (malice may be inferred from circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Urbanski, 627 A.2d 789 (Pa.Super.1993) (drunk driving; malice evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 565 A.2d 458 (Pa.Super.1989) (malice when reckless conduct; fleeing scene)
- Commonwealth v. Scales, 648 A.2d 1205 (Pa.Super.1994) (example of conduct showing conscious disregard)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 337 A.2d 545 (Pa.1975) (malice evidence factors)
- Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 A.2d 720 (Pa.Super.2003) (substantial question standard)
- Commonwealth v. Kiesel, 854 A.2d 530 (Pa.Super.2004) (Rule 2119(f) concise statement requirements)