Commonwealth v. Moyer
171 A.3d 849
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Tina Maria Moyer failed to fully stop at a stop sign on Kindig Road and entered Route 97 where a building obstructed her view; she proceeded at ~12 mph into oncoming traffic.
- Her vehicle was struck by a northbound box truck, which was pushed into the southbound lane and collided with a tow truck; the box truck driver (decedent) died.
- Jury convicted Moyer of homicide by vehicle (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3732) and recklessly endangering another person (REAP); acquitted of homicide-by-vehicle-DUI; court found DUI and imposed concurrent/consecutive sentences totaling 36–108 months.
- A warrantless blood draw produced trace alprazolam and THC; Moyer received Pennsylvania DL-26 form advising penalties for refusal (form later revised after Birchfield).
- Two days after sentencing, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Birchfield v. North Dakota (holding criminal penalties for refusal to submit to blood testing violate the Fourth Amendment); Moyer sought post-sentence relief under Birchfield via a nunc pro tunc motion.
- Trial court denied relief because Moyer never preserved a Fourth Amendment challenge to the warrantless blood draw at trial; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for homicide by vehicle (§ 3732) | Moyer: her conduct was a mere rolling stop/traffic violation, not criminal recklessness; death was unlikely and caused by victim’s seatbelt status/open door | Commonwealth: evidence showed conscious disregard of substantial/unjustified risk (obstructed view, familiarity with intersection, speed, failure to brake) | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to support recklessness and § 3732 conviction |
| Validity/retroactivity of DUI conviction after Birchfield | Moyer: DUI conviction based on blood drawn after warnings on DL-26; Birchfield invalidates penalties and coerced consent so conviction must be vacated | Commonwealth: Moyer failed to preserve a Fourth Amendment challenge at trial; under Pennsylvania law new constitutional rules apply retroactively only if issue was preserved | Affirmed: trial court properly denied nunc pro tunc relief; Moyer not entitled to retroactive application because she did not preserve the warrantless-blood-draw issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (criminalizing refusal of blood test violates Fourth Amendment)
- Commonwealth v. Matroni, 923 A.2d 444 (Pa. Super. 2007) (speeding/tailgating/erratic lane changes supported § 3732 recklessness)
- Commonwealth v. Grimes, 842 A.2d 432 (Pa. Super. 2004) (repeated swerving into oncoming lane supported homicide-by-vehicle conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (new constitutional rules not applied retroactively unless issue preserved at trial)
- Commonwealth v. Cabeza, 469 A.2d 146 (Pa. 1983) (retroactivity rule: new appellate decisions apply retroactively only where issue was preserved)
- Commonwealth v. Giron, 155 A.3d 655 (Pa. Super. 2017) (post-Birchfield: vacating sentence that included increased penalties for refusal)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 153 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2016) (post-Birchfield: remand to evaluate validity of consent to blood draw)