Commonwealth v. Fudge
213 A.3d 321
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2019Background
- On June 27, 2017 Trooper Dabrowski stopped a commercial tractor-trailer driven by Dolphus Fudge after observing unsafe lane use, speeding, and a near-collision.
- Trooper smelled burnt marijuana from the cab, observed signs the driver was under the influence of a stimulant, and conducted field sobriety tests.
- During a warrantless canine-supported search (and a prior protective sweep), officers recovered a loaded 9mm handgun, a magazine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia from the cab.
- Fudge was charged with multiple offenses including DUI (first offense), firearms and drug possession counts, and moved to suppress the evidence seized from the cab; the suppression court denied the motion.
- A jury convicted Fudge of firearms and drug possession counts but reported it was deadlocked on the DUI count; the trial court nevertheless entered a guilty verdict sua sponte on the DUI and sentenced Fudge to 54–108 months overall.
- On appeal the Superior Court affirmed the suppression ruling and most convictions, found two trial evidentiary rulings harmless error, but vacated the DUI conviction and remanded on the ground the trial court abused its discretion in entering a verdict after the jury reported it could not reach unanimity.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suppression court erred by crediting Trooper Dabrowski despite allegedly false testimony | Dabrowski gave materially false statements and thus his testimony should be rejected and the search suppressed | Credible testimony and undisputed facts (odor, erratic driving, sobriety tests) established probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search | Affirmed: discrepancies were not material; totality of circumstances gave probable cause to search cab |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by allowing trooper to opine about fingerprint formation | Trooper lacked forensic qualifications; his scientific-sounding testimony improperly bolstered the Commonwealth | Testimony was lay-opinion style and limited; even if erroneous, it was harmless given the constructive-possession theory | Admission was abuse of discretion but harmless error; conviction on constructive-possession unaffected |
| Whether trial court could enter guilty verdict on DUI after jury reported it was deadlocked | Court lacked authority to record a guilty verdict after jury announced inability to reach unanimity; doing so usurped the jury and deprived Commonwealth of retrial discretion | Trial court argued DUI was a petty offense (no constitutional jury right) and treated charge as bench matter for efficiency | Vacated DUI conviction: court abused discretion by entering verdict after jury deadlock; proper responses were to continue deliberations or declare mistrial so Commonwealth could choose retrial |
| Whether trooper could opine that Fudge was under influence to the extent driving unsafe (expert testimony) | Trooper's opinion exceeded lay witness scope and required expert qualification | Commonwealth argued trooper's training and DUI experience supported opinion | Court declined to address this issue on appeal due to disposition on other issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gary, 91 A.3d 102 (Pa. 2014) (warrantless vehicle search requires probable cause; no extra exigency beyond vehicle mobility)
- Commonwealth v. McCoy, 154 A.3d 813 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard of review for suppression denials)
- Commonwealth v. Runyan, 160 A.3d 831 (Pa. Super. 2017) (probable cause and totality-of-circumstances standard)
- Commonwealth v. Camacho, 625 A.2d 1242 (Pa. Super. 1993) (credibility determinations on suppression review)
- Commonwealth v. Buffington, 828 A.2d 1024 (Pa. 2003) (deadlocked jury requires mistrial; retrial permitted)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 587 A.2d 1367 (Pa. 1991) (trial judge's discretion to encourage further deliberation)
- Widmer v. Commonwealth, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (abuse of discretion standard)
- Commonwealth v. Kerry, 906 A.2d 1237 (Pa. Super. 2006) (no Sixth Amendment jury right for petty offense/DUI first offense)
- Commonwealth v. Yocolano, 169 A.3d 47 (Pa. Super. 2017) (harmless-error framework for evidentiary rulings)