Commonwealth v. LaBenne
21 A.3d 1287
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Appellant Jennifer LaBenne was convicted of DUI under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2) and related summary offenses after a bench trial in Potter County.
- Trooper observed LaBenne weave, cross centerline four times, and remain in the opposing lane for 150–200 feet over about two miles.
- LaBenne showed red, glassy eyes, constricted pupils, slow/slurred speech, and failed sobriety tests; blood tests later detected morphine and hydrocodone.
- LaBenne admitted taking nine substances without current prescriptions; Commonwealth denied ARD admission; trial court denied a motion to compel ARD.
- On appeal, LaBenne challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for DUI and the Commonwealth’s denial of ARD; the trial court order and verdict were upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the evidence sufficient to prove DUI under 3802(d)(2)? | LaBenne contends the Commonwealth failed to prove she was under the influence of a drug. | Commonwealth argues the combination of symptoms and drug presence showed impairment. | Yes; evidence was sufficient that drugs impaired LaBenne, supporting DUI conviction. |
| Did the Commonwealth abuse its discretion in denying ARD admission? | LaBenne claims denial based on improper considerations (e.g., rehabilitation efforts, conference attendance). | Commonwealth asserts ARD decision rests within prosecutorial discretion and was not abused. | No abuse; ARD denial was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brooks, 7 A.3d 852 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard for sufficiency and credibility in evaluating evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Corrigan, 992 A.2d 126 (Pa. Super. 2010) (DA's sole discretion in ARD decisions; need to show abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Lutz, 508 Pa. 297 (Pa. 1985) (ARD admission framework and prosecutorial discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Sohnleitner, 884 A.2d 307 (Pa. Super. 2005) (trial court credibility and deference to prosecutorial discretion in ARD)
- Commonwealth v. Hughes, 908 A.2d 924 (Pa. Super. 2006) (credibility of witnesses and weight of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Etchison, 916 A.2d 1169 (Pa. Super. 2007) (distinction where blood metabolites do not prove present impairment)