Commonwealth v. McKellick
24 A.3d 982
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- McKellick was convicted at a bench trial of Driving Under the Influence-Highest Rate (§3802(c)) and sentenced to 72 hours to 6 months, fines, costs, one-year license suspension, and Alcohol Highway Safety Program.
- The Commonwealth relied on a dashboard video of the November 12, 2008 traffic stop; there was no audio, and Trooper Miller, the arresting officer, was deceased before trial.
- McKellick challenged the conviction on confrontation/the credibility of the video, sufficiency of the evidence, and identification/accuracy of the dash-cam depiction.
- Trial evidence included the dash-cam video, field sobriety tests, blood tests showing BACs of .23% to .28%, and testimony from phlebotomist Sowinski and chemist Perry.
- The majority held the video was properly authenticated as demonstrative evidence and did not violate Crawford, and the evidence was sufficient to convict.
- Dissent argued the videodisk was not properly authenticated and should have been excluded, stressing that no witness testified to its fair and accurate depiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation rights and admission of video | McKellick | Commonwealth | Video admissible; no Crawford violation |
| Sufficiency of evidence for DUI-Highest Rate | McKellick | Commonwealth | Evidence sufficient to convict |
| Identification on dash-cam and hearsay | McKellick | Commonwealth | Identity established; motion to exclude based on identification rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Crawford, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial hearsay requires cross-examination)
- Commonwealth v. Serge, 896 A.2d 1170 (Pa. 2006) (demonstrative evidence must be fairly represented; authentication standard)
- Commonwealth v. Conway, 534 A.2d 541 (Pa. Super. 1987) (non-testimonial nature of certain video evidence; face-to-face confrontation not always required)
- Commonwealth v. Mollett, 5 A.3d 291 (Pa. Super. 2010) (confrontation and admissibility standards for testimonial evidence; cross-examination implications)
- Commonwealth v. Reid, 811 A.2d 530 (Pa. 2002) (authentication of demonstrative evidence; balancing probative value and prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. DiPanfilo, 993 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Super. 2010) (sufficiency and evidentiary standards; standard of review for sufficiency claims)
- Kopytin v. Aschinger, 947 A.2d 739 (Pa. Super. 2008) (authentication of videotapes; need for witness with knowledge to attest accuracy)
- Heimbach v. Peltz, 384 Pa. 308 (1956) (photographs require testimonial foundation demonstrating fair and accurate depiction)
- Taylor v. Borough of Modena, 370 Pa. 100 (1952) (photographic authentication requires representation of the depicted object/place)