Commonwealth v. Grays
167 A.3d 793
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- On March 1, 2013, Roegester Grays drove a Chevrolet Avalanche that collided head‑on with a Suburban on PA Route 328, killing the two adults and injuring children in the Suburban.
- Grays was charged with multiple offenses including homicide by vehicle (DUI and non‑DUI), aggravated assault by vehicle (DUI and non‑DUI), DUIs, and possession of a controlled substance; one post‑arrest blood test was suppressed pretrial.
- Arnot Ogden (New York) performed a medical blood draw at ~5:30 p.m. (serum BAC 0.145%; converted to whole blood .123) that the Commonwealth used at trial; police later obtained post‑arrest blood (suppressed) and other vehicle evidence.
- Eyewitnesses and a Pennsylvania State Police reconstructionist testified both vehicles were in the eastbound lane at impact; defense argued physical impossibility of Avalanche’s reported post‑collision position and denied drinking.
- Trial jury convicted Grays on all contested counts; trial court sentenced to consecutive aggravated‑range terms totalling 252 months + 30 days to 564 months; Grays appealed challenging sufficiency, admissibility of medical records/BAC, merger, and sentencing factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Grays) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: vehicle was in eastbound lane at impact | Credible eyewitness and reconstruction testimony support finding Avalanche occupied eastbound lane | Physical impossibility: vehicle length/scene features made eastbound presence impossible | Affirmed: evidence (eyewitnesses + reconstruction) sufficient; jury credited Commonwealth’s proof |
| Sufficiency: whether C.M. sustained "serious bodily injury" | Medical testimony established bowel perforation, surgery, 12‑day hospitalization and risk of septic shock — qualifies as serious bodily injury | Argued injuries did not meet statutory serious bodily injury threshold | Affirmed: injuries met 75 Pa.C.S.A. §102 definition; convictions sustained |
| Admissibility of pre‑arrest blood/medical records (consent & privilege/conflict) | Pennsylvania may use medical records/BAC obtained in NY hospital; PA law governs and does not bar use in criminal cases | Blood drawn for medical care; Grays did not consent for evidentiary use; New York physician‑patient privilege should bar disclosure | Affirmed: Grays waived/failed to preserve Fourth Amendment consent challenge (not raised below); Pennsylvania law governs conflict of laws and permits use — NY privilege interest outweighed by PA interest |
| Merger and sentencing challenges (merge DUI and non‑DUI counts; aggravated range; remorse and prior record) | Distinct statutory elements for DUI vs non‑DUI offenses; court properly considered lack of remorse, public protection, gravity, and prior DUIs | Crimes arose from single episode and lesser‑included merger required; sentencing improperly considered lack of remorse and double‑counted prior convictions | Affirmed: statutes (and precedent) show DUI and non‑DUI vehicular homicide/assault do not merge; sentencing court did not abuse discretion in aggravated ranges or in considering remorse/prior history |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (warrant required for blood draws; breath tests permissible incident to arrest)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 153 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2016) (applying Birchfield to voluntariness of blood consent and remanding to reassess consent where officer’s advisory was inaccurate)
- Commonwealth v. Neupert, 684 A.2d 627 (Pa. Super. 1996) (homicide by vehicle and homicide by vehicle‑DUI are not merger offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Collins, 764 A.2d 1056 (Pa. 2001) (adopted Neupert; DUI and non‑DUI vehicular homicide do not merge)
- Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122 (Pa. 2007) (choice‑of‑law framework for criminal conflicts; weigh sister‑state interests)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (U.S. 2004) (new rules of criminal procedure apply on direct review)