Commonwealth v. Eichler
133 A.3d 775
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- On Nov. 6, 2012 a black Nissan Titan drove erratically, struck and severely injured a wheelchair-bound pedestrian (Byron White); eyewitness observed swerving and debris.
- About 75 minutes after the crash police identified vehicle parts bearing a Nissan logo and learned from a Game Commission officer that a black Nissan Titan was at Eichler’s nearby residence.
- Sergeant Gillingham drove up Eichler’s unmarked, unfenced driveway, discovered the damaged truck in the driveway (within the home’s curtilage), observed Eichler emerge highly intoxicated, smelled alcohol, and was told by Eichler he left the scene because he had been drinking.
- Officers arrested Eichler, transported him to hospital for a blood draw about 2+ hours after driving; blood test later showed BAC .30. Officers testified Eichler did not drink after arrest.
- Jury convicted Eichler of aggravated assault by vehicle while DUI (75 Pa.C.S. § 3735.1), DUI-general impairment and highest rate, and related offenses; trial court denied suppression motions and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Eichler) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Warrantless entry/search of curtilage | Entry was investigatory, police had reason to inspect vehicle in plain view; observations and statements gave probable cause | Entry into curtilage and inspection of truck without warrant violated Fourth Amendment; evidence should be suppressed | Entry limited to areas visitors would use; truck in plain view; investigatory entry permitted; no Fourth Amendment violation; suppression denied |
| 2. Admissibility of blood test taken >2 hours after driving | Delay was justified by defendant’s flight (good cause under §3802(g)); officers testified defendant did not imbibe post-arrest | Blood-test results should be suppressed because drawn more than two hours after driving | Good-cause exception satisfied; no post-arrest drinking shown; results admissible (also admissible under §3802(a)(1) without 2-hour limit) |
| 3. Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault by vehicle while DUI | Evidence of driving while intoxicated (BAC .30, admissions, officer observations, erratic driving), criminal negligence, and serious bodily injury established all elements | Evidence insufficient to prove intoxication at time of driving or criminal negligence causally linked to serious injury | Viewing evidence in Commonwealth’s favor, circumstantial and expert reconstruction evidence sufficient to prove §3735.1 elements beyond reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed |
| 4. Sufficiency to prove DUI (general impairment) | Same evidence (demeanor, admissions, driving, BAC, expert) proved incapacity to drive safely | Argued no proof defendant was impaired at time of driving | Evidence sufficient under §3802(a)(1); conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cruz, 71 A.3d 998 (Pa. Super. 2013) (scope of evidence for reviewing suppression and DUI sufficiency)
- In re L.J., 79 A.3d 1073 (Pa. 2013) (limits appellate review to suppression record prospectively)
- Commonwealth v. Chacko, 459 A.2d 311 (Pa. 1983) (pre-L.J. authority allowing appellate review to consider trial testimony when reviewing suppression denials)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2013) (curtilage is part of the home for Fourth Amendment property-based analysis; implied license concept)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (U.S. 2012) (property-based trespass approach relevant alongside expectation-of-privacy test)
- Commonwealth v. Segida, 985 A.2d 871 (Pa. 2009) (§3802(a)(1) requirements and types of evidence for proving general-impairment DUI)