Commonwealth v. Gause
164 A.3d 532
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Early morning traffic stop after officer observed the vehicle’s taillights not illuminated; driver Artee Gause pulled over promptly and produced license/registration.
- Officer Eiker smelled alcohol; Gause said he had one 12‑oz beer about 30 minutes earlier. No odor or sighting of marijuana, no bloodshot eyes, and no admissions of recent marijuana use.
- Gause performed several field sobriety tests with mixed results: no HGN impairment, some failures on walk‑and‑turn, passed one‑leg stand, and exhibited eyelid/body tremors on Romberg tests; Gause has a prior leg injury that could affect some tests.
- Gause submitted to a drug recognition evaluation but refused chemical testing; Officer George performed additional tests and observed eyelid tremors and concluded possible impairment by both drug and alcohol, though he also said Gause was not over the legal BAC limit.
- At trial the court initially barred, then allowed, Officer Eiker to testify that eyelid/body tremors indicate marijuana impairment; jury convicted Gause of DUI—general impairment (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1)) and DUI—controlled substance (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2)).
- Superior Court vacated the judgments, concluding lay opinion linking tremors to marijuana was inadmissible and the remaining evidence was insufficient to support either DUI conviction; appellant discharged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Officer Eiker’s lay opinion that eyelid/body tremors indicate marijuana impairment | Eiker’s training/experience made her opinion admissible as lay testimony helpful to jury | Gause argued such a causal link requires expert testimony and Eiker’s lay opinion was improper | Court held lay opinion was inadmissible under Pa.R.E. 701 because attributing tremors to marijuana requires specialized knowledge |
| Whether trial court erred in reversing its pretrial ruling and allowing Eiker’s opinion at trial | Commonwealth argued reversal was harmless or proper given totality of observations | Gause argued reversal prejudiced him because opinion was central to proof of drug impairment | Court found the error not harmless; opinion was central and could have contributed to verdict |
| Sufficiency of evidence for DUI—controlled substance (§ 3802(d)(2)) | Commonwealth relied on officers’ observations and lay testimony (tremors, test clues) to show impairment by drugs | Gause argued there was no proof of recent drug ingestion, no chemical tests, and no expert linking signs to marijuana | Court held evidence insufficient once improper lay opinion excluded; conviction vacated |
| Sufficiency of evidence for DUI—general impairment (§ 3802(a)(1)) | Commonwealth pointed to odor of alcohol, admission of one beer, and field sobriety clues | Gause stressed cooperative behavior, lack of classic alcohol signs, mixed sobriety results, and Officer George’s statement that Gause was not alcohol‑impaired | Court held evidence insufficient to prove alcohol impairment to degree of incapacity; conviction vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. DiPanfilo, 993 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Super. 2010) (expert testimony may be required to link observed signs to marijuana impairment absent obvious indicia)
- Commonwealth v. Griffith, 32 A.3d 1231 (Pa. 2011) (expert testimony for drug‑causation under § 3802(d)(2) is evaluated case‑by‑case; not always mandatory)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 121 A.3d 524 (Pa. Super. 2015) (officer’s smell of burnt marijuana can alone provide reasonable grounds for chemical testing)
- Commonwealth v. Allison, 703 A.2d 16 (Pa. 1997) (lay witness may not offer specialized medical/scientific conclusions without expert foundation)
- Commonwealth v. LaBenne, 21 A.3d 1287 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence — view record in light most favorable to verdict winner)
- Commonwealth v. Poplawski, 130 A.3d 697 (Pa. 2015) (admissibility of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 573 A.2d 536 (Pa. 1990) (harmless‑error framework for erroneously admitted evidence)