Commonwealth v. Wise, 171 A.3d 784

On Sept. 24, 2015 Officer Holly Rowland, in uniform at the scene of a minor accident with lights on, encountered Sherry Wise driving a green convertible Mustang near an intersection. Rowland knew Wise lacked a valid license from prior dealings.
Rowland told Wise to pull over, pointed to a nearby driveway/shoulder, and motioned with her arm; Wise asked ‘‘where’’ but did not object further.
Instead of stopping, Wise turned onto York Road, accelerated away at high speed, and did not return or contact police that evening. Rowland radioed dispatch that the vehicle had fled the scene but did not pursue because she remained at the accident scene.
A jury convicted Wise of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer (75 Pa.C.S. § 3733) and the trial court also convicted her of driving without a license; sentence: two years probation, fines/costs, and 100 hours community service.
On appeal Wise argued (1) the jury instruction was incomplete because the court refused to include the phrase "pursuing police officer" and (2) the Commonwealth failed to prove an essential element—she was not fleeing a pursuing officer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wise)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Whether jury instruction misstated elements by omitting "pursuing police officer"	The statute requires a pursuing officer for both "fleeing" and "attempting to elude"; omission misled jury	The statute’s plain text disjoins conduct with "or": pursuit is required for "attempts to elude a pursuing officer" but not for "fleeing"; trial court used standard instruction	Court affirmed: no error—statute reads disjunctively; pursuit not required to convict for "fleeing"
Sufficiency of evidence to prove fleeing or attempting to elude beyond a reasonable doubt	Because Officer Rowland never pursued, an essential element was missing and evidence was insufficient	Evidence showed Rowland gave a visual/audible signal (verbal direction + arm motion) and Wise willfully drove away; jury could infer fleeing/intent	Issue waived for inadequate briefing; alternatively, court would affirm—evidence sufficient to support conviction

Commonwealth v. Scattone, 672 A.2d 345 (1996) (interpreting § 3733 and treating statute as clear on offense elements)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 911 A.2d 576 (2006) (standards for reviewing jury instructions)
Commonwealth v. Lopez, 663 A.2d 746 (1995) ("or" given its disjunctive meaning unless result is unreasonable)
Commonwealth v. Woodard, 129 A.3d 480 (2015) (issue waiver for undeveloped appellate briefing)