Commonwealth v. Hutchins
42 A.3d 302
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Hutchins was convicted on two counts of DUI-drug impairment, four counts of REAP, and one marijuana possession after a September 14, 2010 jury trial; sentence on October 13, 2010 was 1 month to 2 years plus restitution and fines, with remand for resentencing on REAP.
- The accident occurred when Hutchins turned left in front of an oncoming car on Old Jonestown Road; Hutchins’ three young daughters were in the car; weather and road conditions were favorable.
- Trooper Mays smelled marijuana in Hutchins’ vehicle and found marijuana in a cigarette case in the driver’s door pocket; Trooper Trate observed Hutchins was unusually calm and Hutchins admitted to smoking marijuana earlier.
- Blood testing showed 43 ng/mL of carboxy-THC, a marijuana metabolite, and the lab reported 0 alcohol; Hutchins consented to a blood draw.
- The defense challenged expert testimony and the treatment of non-whole-blood testing; the court noted Dr. Edinboro’s testimony on testing methods and remained undecided on precision issues but held the evidence sufficient for 3802(d)(2) without the blood result; REAP convictions were vacated and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of 3802(d)(2) impairment proof | Hutchins argues lack of proof of impairment causally linked to marijuana. | Griffith requires expert testimony to prove causation from blood results; lack of such testimony invalidates conviction. | Sufficient evidence, even without blood result (with other indicia) |
| Use of non-whole-blood testing for 3802(d)(1) conviction | Non-whole-blood test validity questioned; conversion not needed for 3802(d)(1). | Non-whole-blood results must be converted to whole blood; lack of conversion undermines conviction. | Conversion not required for 3802(d)(1); evidence of metabolite suffices |
| Sufficiency of REAP convictions given intoxication evidence | REAP supported by intoxication and unsafe driving. | No tangible indicia of unsafe driving beyond intoxication; REAP not proven. | REAP convictions vacated; remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hennigan, 753 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2000) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence; may rely on circumstantial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Griffith, 32 A.3d 1231 (Pa. 2011) (no mandatory expert testimony for 3802(d)(2); expert may be helpful but not required)
- Commonwealth v. Etchison, 916 A.2d 1169 (Pa. Super. 2007) ( addressing expert necessity for blood metabolite testimony in DUI cases)
- Commonwealth v. Mastromatteo, 719 A.2d 1081 (Pa. Super. 1998) (DUI alone not per se REAP; must show tangible recklessness beyond intoxication)
- Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 864 A.2d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2004) (REAP upheld with evident unsafe driving or similar indicia)