Commonwealth v. Weaver
76 A.3d 562
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- On Jan. 1, 2010, Weaver was stopped after a citizen and a trooper observed erratic, weaving driving; he appeared sluggish and performed only HGN testing due to a leg injury.
- Troopers found pills in his car; blood tests later showed morphine, diazepam, and nordiazepam.
- Weaver was charged with two counts of DUI under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(1)(ii) and (d)(2); the original informations listed only morphine.
- At a nonjury trial, the Commonwealth amended the informations mid-trial to add benzodiazepines after an analyst began testifying; Weaver received a continuance and the blood analysts and a toxicologist later testified.
- Weaver was convicted and sentenced to six months intermediate punishment; he successfully moved post-sentence to reduce laboratory witness attendance costs for the second trial day, prompting a Commonwealth cross-appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Weaver's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HGN-based observations could support probable cause to arrest | HGN is inadmissible without scientific foundation; thus HGN-driven probable cause was invalid | Probable cause may rely on officer observations including HGN even if HGN is inadmissible at trial | Probable cause existed; officers could rely on HGN observations for probable cause (Brinegar principle) |
| Whether the admission of laboratory results violated the Confrontation Clause | Admission violated Confrontation Clause because the analyst who conducted morphine testing did not testify | All analysts who performed or participated in the testing testified; toxicologist also testified | Confrontation Clause not violated; testifying analysts and toxicologist satisfied Crawford/Melendez‑Diaz/Bullcoming concerns |
| Whether the erroneous mid-trial amendment and consequent continuance made second-day lab witness costs Weaver's responsibility | Weaver: not responsible; second day was necessitated by Commonwealth’s failure to properly charge/testing disclosures | Commonwealth: statutes require defendants to pay prosecution costs, including necessary lab expenses and witness travel | Trial court properly excused Weaver from paying lab witness costs for the second trial day because those expenses were unnecessary and caused by the Commonwealth’s error; affirmed |
| Whether statutory cost provisions compelled assessment of all lab witness costs to defendant | Weaver: statutory costs should not cover unnecessary expenses caused by prosecution error | Commonwealth: 42 Pa.C.S. § 9728(g) and 16 P.S. § 1403 require defendant to bear prosecution expenses when convicted | Court reads § 1403’s “necessary expenses” to exclude costs occasioned solely by Commonwealth’s oversight; affirm trial court’s reduction |
Key Cases Cited
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1949) (probable-cause inquiry may consider evidence inadmissible at trial; different standards for probable cause and guilt)
- Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic certificates are testimonial; analysts who prepare reports must be available for cross-examination)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (surrogate testimony about a lab report prepared by another analyst violates the Confrontation Clause)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 532 A.2d 1186 (Pa. Super. 1987) (HGN evidence inadmissible at trial absent proof of general acceptance in relevant scientific community)
- Commonwealth v. Coder, 415 A.2d 406 (Pa. 1980) (defendant should not bear costs for proceedings necessitated primarily by prosecutorial error)