Commonwealth v. Kutzel
64 A.3d 1114
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Appellant Eric Kutzel was convicted at a non-jury trial of accident involving death or personal injury while not properly licensed (AIDPI) and driving with license suspended.
- The incident occurred May 1, 2010, when M.K., a nine-year-old, was struck by Kutzel’s car while crossing in a crosswalk on a green signal.
- The trial court found Kutzel and the pedestrian had a right to proceed, but a pedestrian’s right supersedes a driver’s right; the court favored M.K.’s version.
- The driver’s license was suspended at the time of the collision, and M.K. suffered injuries; the parties stipulate this.
- Kutzel argued that AIDPI requires criminal negligence and that mere driving with a suspended license is not sufficient to convict, citing Heck and Hurst.
- On appeal, the Superior Court vacated the AIDPI conviction, concluding the evidence did not prove criminal negligence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is evidence sufficient for AIDPI as more than an accident? | Kutzel: no; accident alone cannot prove crime without mens rea. | Commonwealth: M.K.’s version supports a traffic violation and negligence. | Evidence insufficient; AIDPI conviction vacated. |
| Does AIDPI require criminal negligence and can license suspension alone prove it? | Kutzel: must show crime-level negligence, not mere suspended-licence status. | Commonwealth: driving with suspended license plus accident can show negligence. | Criminal negligence required; license suspension alone insufficient. |
| Was there a gross deviation from the standard of care supporting criminal negligence? | Kutzel: no evidence of gross deviation; cannot prove negligence beyond accident. | Commonwealth: failure to yield or perceive hazard could show gross deviation. | No gross deviation proven; AIDPI conviction vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hurst, 889 A.2d 624 (Pa.Super. 2005) (AIDPI requires criminal negligence, not strict liability)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 810 A.2d 178 (Pa.Super. 2002) (prima facie criminal negligence analysis varies by procedure)
- Commonwealth v. Heck, 341 Pa.Super. 183, 491 A.2d 212 (Pa.Super. 1985) (accident alone without known hazard may be insufficient for gross negligence)
- Commonwealth v. Lobiondo, 501 Pa. 599, 462 A.2d 662 (Pa. 1983) (gross deviation depends on standard of care in context)
- Commonwealth v. Herb, 852 A.2d 356 (Pa.Super. 2004) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)