Commonwealth v. Graham
81 A.3d 137
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Karen Lisa Graham was tried for DUI offenses; a jury acquitted her of general alcohol-impaired driving (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1)/(a)(2)) but convicted her of driving under the combined influence of alcohol and drugs (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(3)).
- Officer Michael Kopp (16-year veteran) observed erratic driving, slow speeds, briefly stopping in the roadway, failure to stop at stop signs, slurred speech, glassy/bloodshot eyes, odor of alcohol, inability to exit/stand without assistance, and failures on field sobriety tests.
- Officer Kopp arrested Graham and asked for blood testing; Graham refused and told the officer she was on prescription medications (Celexa, HydroPam, Vistaril) and expected they would show up in the test.
- At trial Graham testified she had not been drinking, that her prescriptions were taken as directed, and that longstanding nerve damage from a prior injury caused her coordination and speech issues.
- The trial court granted Graham’s post-sentence motion for judgment of acquittal, finding insufficient evidence that impairment was caused by the combined influence of alcohol and drugs because the Commonwealth introduced no expert testimony about the drugs’ effects or an officer opinion tying impairment to controlled substances.
- On appeal the Commonwealth argued (relying on Commonwealth v. Griffith) that expert proof was not always required and that the totality of the evidence — officer observations, Graham’s admissions about medications, and her refusal to submit to testing — sufficed to prove impairment from combined alcohol and drugs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(3) for combined influence of alcohol and drugs | Commonwealth: officer observations, Graham’s admission she had medications in her system, and her refusal to submit to blood testing supported an inference that impairment was from combined alcohol and drugs; expert testimony not mandatory | Graham: no evidence (expert or officer opinion) that her impairment was caused by drugs or their combination with alcohol; Commonwealth failed to prove causation | Court: Reinstated conviction — under Griffith §3802(d)(3) does not mandate expert proof; totality of lay evidence (trained officer’s observations, defendant’s admission and refusal to test) was sufficient to support conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Griffith, 32 A.3d 1231 (Pa. 2011) (Supreme Court: §3802(d) does not categorically require expert testimony; sufficiency can rest on lay evidence and totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 947 A.2d 800 (Pa. Super. 2008) (explains standard for motion for judgment of acquittal and sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 A.3d 544 (Pa. Super. 2011) (articulates standard for sufficiency review and deference to factfinder)
- Commonwealth v. Hutchins, 42 A.3d 302 (Pa. Super. 2012) (discusses limits of blood-test evidence for marijuana and need for expert explanation when blood markers do not show active impairment)