Commonwealth v. Ford
141 A.3d 547
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Leon DaTawn Ford was stopped after police observed him speeding; officers also believed he failed to stop at two stop signs; a dashboard video captured the encounter.
- After the stop, officers suspected Ford matched a photo of a person with an outstanding warrant; confrontation escalated, Ford drove off with an officer partially in the car, Officer Derbish fired five shots, Ford was struck and became paraplegic.
- At trial the jury acquitted Ford of aggravated assault but deadlocked on other non-summary counts; the trial court entered convictions (with no further penalty) for summary offenses: failure to stop at a stop sign and careless driving (lesser included of reckless driving).
- The criminal information cited 75 Pa.C.S. § 3323 (yield-sign subsection) though the conduct prosecuted was failure to stop at stop signs (different subsection); Ford raised this and sufficiency/weight issues on appeal.
- The trial court viewed the video and credited officer testimony that Ford did not come to a complete stop at two stop signs and that he had driven at a high rate of speed; the trial judge who tried the case retired and a successor issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion questioning the convictions; Commonwealth did not seek retrial of remaining counts.
Issues
| Issue | Ford's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conviction for failing to stop is supported given criminal information cited yield-sign subsection | Information charged yield sign (§3323(c)), no yield sign existed; video and testimony show braking, not full violations | Ford waived defect; he was on notice and defended stop-sign charge; omission of exact subsection is not fatal | Waived; alternatively, no prejudice — conviction sustained on sufficiency grounds |
| Sufficiency of evidence for failure to stop at stop sign | Video shows brake lights; disputes about locations and whether full stop occurred; testimony conflicted | Officers credibly testified he failed to stop; video corroborated court’s finding he did not fully stop | Sufficient evidence to sustain conviction |
| Sufficiency of evidence for careless driving (§3714) | No proof he drove too fast for conditions; no radar speed reading | Officers testified high rate of speed; officer had to drive 52 mph to catch him; pulling away while officer partly in car supports careless driving | Sufficient evidence to sustain careless driving conviction |
| Motion for remand based on after-discovered evidence (pattern of pretextual stops; body-mic discrepancy) | New documents show officers engaged in pretextual stops and call into question officer’s trial explanation about not wearing body mic | Stop was supported by objective evidence of traffic violations; body-mic issue irrelevant to guilt on traffic offenses | Remand denied: pretext evidence immaterial to constitutionality of stop (Whren); mic discrepancy would only impeach and not change verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Weigle, 997 A.2d 306 (Pa. 2010) (information cannot be used to resurrect charges dismissed at preliminary hearing)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (officer subjective intent irrelevant when objective grounds for stop exist)
- Commonwealth v. Sinclair, 897 A.2d 1218 (Pa. Super. 2006) (amendment/variance of information permissible where defendant had notice and no prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 727 A.2d 541 (Pa. 1999) (post-amendment prejudice test for substituted charges)
- Commonwealth v. Gezovich, 7 A.3d 300 (Pa. Super. 2010) (mens rea for careless driving explained)
- Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 36 A.3d 24 (Pa. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)