Commonwealth v. Karner
193 A.3d 986
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2018Background
- On June 16, 2017 Sean J. Karner rear-ended a Honda; the passenger (Ralph Grosso) died and the driver (Jacqueline Grosso) was severely injured. Karner’s pickup also struck a building.
- Karner was charged with multiple offenses including homicide by vehicle (non-DUI), aggravated assault by vehicle (non-DUI), various DUI counts, and several summary motor-vehicle violations.
- At a preliminary hearing magistrate bound all charges over to the Court of Common Pleas but indicated mens rea for the non-DUI vehicular offenses was a close question for Common Pleas to decide.
- Karner filed a pretrial petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking dismissal of the non-DUI homicide and aggravated-assault-by-vehicle counts for failure to establish a prima facie case of recklessness/gross negligence.
- After a habeas hearing, the trial court dismissed those non-DUI counts, finding the Commonwealth failed to produce evidence of criminal recklessness or gross negligence (speed ~53–57 mph in a 45 zone; victims’ vehicle was traveling ~25–26 mph; evidence of drugs/metabolites was not tied to recklessness). The Commonwealth appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Karner's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commonwealth produced a prima facie case of recklessness/gross negligence to support non-DUI homicide-by-vehicle and aggravated-assault-by-vehicle charges | Motor-vehicle violations, speeding, and presence of Xanax/heroin metabolites showed recklessness/gross negligence and supported submission to a jury | Motor-vehicle code violations alone do not establish criminal recklessness; statutes expressly exclude DUI from the non-DUI offenses and metabolites/strict-liability DUI provisions are irrelevant to mens rea | Court affirmed: Commonwealth failed to produce evidence of recklessness/gross negligence needed for those non-DUI charges; dismissal affirmed |
| Proper procedure/standard for appellate review after dismissal in Common Pleas | Direct appeal to Superior Court is proper; plenary review applies to prima facie legal question | Relied on Wolgemuth to argue re-arrest/re-charge is proper and challenged briefing; argued abuse-of-discretion review | Court held appeal was proper; plenary review of legal prima facie question applies and trial court’s legal conclusion was reviewed and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Karetny, 880 A.2d 505 (Pa. 2005) (prima facie habeas legal questions reviewed plenary)
- Commonwealth v. Dantzler, 135 A.3d 1109 (Pa. Super. 2016) (use of preliminary-hearing evidence and additional proof to establish prima facie case)
- Commonwealth v. Hilliard, 172 A.3d 5 (Pa. Super. 2017) (prima facie standard explained: evidence of each material element, viewed favorably to Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Huggins, 836 A.2d 862 (Pa. 2003) (recklessness/gross negligence concepts discussed)
- Commonwealth v. Bullick, 830 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. 2003) (motor-vehicle-code violations alone do not establish "recklessness per se")
- Commonwealth v. Mastromatteo, 719 A.2d 1081 (Pa. Super. 1998) (DUI alone insufficient to establish legal recklessness; other indicia of unsafe driving required)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 121 A.3d 524 (Pa. Super. 2015) (operation with a metabolite in blood is strict liability under vehicle code)
- Commonwealth v. Wolgemuth, 737 A.2d 757 (Pa. Super. 1999) (distinguishable rule on post-dismissal procedure when dismissal occurred at magisterial level)