Commonwealth v. Wisneski
29 A.3d 1150
Pa.2011Background
- Pearce bicycled along a road, collided with a construction barrel, and was subsequently struck by at least two vehicles, dying from injuries.
- Wisneski admitted driving on the road, initially thinking he hit a speed bump, and saw a body in the road in his mirror, but did not stop or alert police.
- Commonwealth charged Wisneski with failure to stop at an accident, duty to give information and render aid, and failure to immediately notify police.
- Trial court dismissed the charges on habeas corpus, ruling the victim had to be alive for the statutes to apply; Superior Court affirmed with a dissent.
- Supreme Court granted allocatur to decide whether the Commonwealth can prove the duties where the victim’s alive status at impact cannot be shown; majority reversed the dismissal.
- Court held that the statutory duties apply where the driver is involved in an accident resulting in injury or death to a person, regardless of whether the victim was alive when struck, and that injury can include damage to a human body, whether living or deceased.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §3742(a) require the victim to be alive at impact? | Wisneski: alive at impact required | Commonwealth: any involvement in an accident with injury or death triggers duties | Statutes apply regardless of victim’s alive status |
| Does the term injury include damage to a deceased body for purposes of the statute? | Pearce’s death cannot be an injury to a living person; no obligation after death | Injury can include damage to the body and thus trigger duties | Injury includes harm to the body whether deceased or alive |
| Should the case be remanded to determine the accident’s duration for purposes of applicability? | Case should be remanded for factual resolution of ongoing accident | Record insufficient to determine duration; duties apply if involved in an injury or death accident | Majority did not remand; reversed lower court on the existing record |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wisneski, 605 Pa. 461 (Pa. 2010) (supreme court decision addressing ongoing-accident interpretation under Vehicle Code)
- Commonwealth v. Patton, 604 Pa. 307 (Pa. 2009) (statutory interpretation and scope in vehicular offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Paterick, 239 Pa. Super. 1 (Pa. Super. 1976) (instruction on obligation to stop even if another vehicle previously struck the victim)
- In re Milton Hershey School, 590 Pa. 35 (Pa. 2006) (statutory interpretation guiding scope of general-purpose provisions)