Commonwealth v. Houck
102 A.3d 443
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- On March 21, 2010 Trooper Ives followed Houck for ~4 minutes and recorded multiple lane deviations; he stopped Houck and detected alcohol odor.
- At the barracks, after observation, Houck submitted two breath samples on a DataMaster DMT showing 0.170% and 0.171% BAC (lower result used = 0.170%).
- Commonwealth charged Houck only under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(c) (BAC ≥ 0.16%) plus two summary offenses; Houck moved to suppress the stop and to dismiss the § 3802(c) charge after the jury returned a BAC-range verdict.
- Trial: jury found Houck guilty of DUI and selected the BAC range 0.10%–0.159% (consistent with § 3802(b)); Houck did not object to the jury instructions, verdict slip, or verdict at trial.
- Post-trial, Houck argued the jury’s BAC-range finding was inconsistent with the only charged offense (§ 3802(c)) and thus the court should have entered not guilty; he also challenged the stop. Court denied suppression and denied post-trial relief; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not entering not guilty when the jury found BAC 0.10%–0.159% though charged only under § 3802(c) | Houck: conviction under § 3802(c) requires BAC ≥ 0.16%; jury’s selection of 0.10%–0.159% meant acquittal on the charged offense and court should enter not guilty | Commonwealth/Court: § 3802(b) is a lesser‑included (cognate) offense of § 3802(c); evidence supported conviction on the lesser range and Houck had notice; inconsistent/compromise verdicts are permissible | Affirmed: § 3802(b) may be treated as a lesser‑included offense of § 3802(c) under the record; conviction stands (and waiver noted for failure to object) |
| Sufficiency of the evidence given jury’s BAC-range finding | Houck: jury’s factual finding shows Commonwealth failed to prove § 3802(c) element beyond reasonable doubt | Commonwealth: breath test and other evidence, viewed favorably to verdict, were sufficient to prove DUI at a BAC level the jury selected | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to support conviction for the lesser BAC range; appellate review defers to jury credibility determinations |
| Legality of the traffic stop / suppression of breath evidence | Houck: poor road conditions explained lane deviations; Trooper lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop | Commonwealth: dashcam and testimony showed repeated lane departures and erratic driving supporting reasonable suspicion | Affirmed: trial court’s factual findings (video reviewed) supported reasonable suspicion; suppression properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sims, 919 A.2d 931 (Pa. 2007) (adopts Model Penal Code framework for when a defendant is convicted of an uncharged offense and describes approaches to lesser‑included analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Haight, 50 A.3d 137 (Pa. Super. 2012) (affirmed conviction for uncharged § 3802(b) as cognate to charged § 3802(c) where record supported lesser verdict)
- Commonwealth v. Sinclair, 897 A.2d 1218 (Pa. Super. 2006) (recognized § 3802(b) as cognate to § 3802(c) in context where amendment was permitted)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 35 A.3d 1206 (Pa. 2012) (explains that inconsistent verdicts are permissible and not automatic grounds for reversal)
- Commonwealth v. Chase, 960 A.2d 108 (Pa. 2008) (interprets 75 Pa.C.S. § 6308 and explains reasonable‑suspicion standard for vehicle stops under the Vehicle Code)
- Commonwealth v. Spruill, 80 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013) (held that failure to contemporaneously object to jury charge/ verdict can waive issues on appeal)