Case Information
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, [1] IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
TIMOTHY FRANCIS MERRITTS,
Appellant No. MDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 19, 2016 the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-21-CR-0000647-2015
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and PLATT, J.* FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2017
MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: Appellant, Timothy Francis Merritts, appeals from judgment of sentence imposed January 19, 2016, following non -jury conviction of impairment, DUI general driving under the influence (DUI) general impairment with an accident, and DUI highest rate.' We affirm. take the factual procedural history this matter our
review of the certified record, trial court's June 30, 2016 opinion. In opinion, the summarized the factual history of this matter as follows:
On August 21, 2014, Sergeant Keith Stambaugh of the Silver Spring Township Police Department dispatched * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
' §§ 3802(a)(1), (c), respectively.
scene a crash in the area 40 West Willow Terrace Road. West Willow Terrace Road is private gravel road that is not maintained Silver Spring Township. The two entrances to the road are marked with signs that read "PRIVATE ROAD PLEASE 5 MPH." There are approximately ten to twelve houses along the road, there are no barriers the entrances, and it open to public use.
Upon arrival, the Sergeant observed dark blue van stuck on an embankment [] the side of the road next to steep cliff leading down to creek. Before he could get out of his vehicle, [Appellant] came forward and walked up to the driver's side window police car. [Appellant] As he approached, appeared to stagger. The Sergeant then exited his vehicle and asked [Appellant] if he was the driver of the stranded van. [Appellant] replied the affirmative. [Appellant] slurred his speech and his eyes were glassy. When asked to provide his driver's registration, and information, license, insurance [Appellant] had difficulty retrieving the requested documents from his van. He dropped his keys multiple times while attempting to unlock his and the Sergeant could smell the strong odor of alcoholic beverages coming from his person. After finally locating requested documents, the Sergeant asked [Appellant] to exit the van. Once he got out, [Appellant] reached into his pocked, pulled something out, and threw over the van down cliff. The Sergeant asked him, "What was that, your marijuana?" And [Appellant] replied, "Maybe." At that point, the Sergeant placed [Appellant] under arrest suspicion of [DUI]. Prior to taking him into custody, the Sergeant asked [Appellant] where he was coming from when [Appellant] replied that he coming a crashed. friend's house Mechanicsburg. When asked if where did all drinking, [Appellant] dropped his head, defeated[,] [Appellant] also admitted alcohol said, "Yeah." contributed to his running off side of the road.
[Appellant] declined to perform standardized field sobriety tests taken to Carlisle Regional Medical Center blood test revealed [Appellant's] [b]lood [a]lcohol [c]ontent be 0.237 percent. During time with the Sergeant, [Appellant] admitted drinking heavily day likely contributed crash. [Appellant] also stated he had had anything drink after crash. (Trial Court Opinion, 6/30/16, at 1-3) (record citation and footnote omitted).
After non -jury trial on November 24, 2015, the trial court found that, after drinking alcohol incapable of safely driving his vehicle, Appellant drove his Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, to West Willow Terrace, where it crashed.2 (See N.T. Trial, 11/24/15, 80-81). It also found blood content 0.237 percent. The court found him guilty all charges. (See at 81).
On January 19, 2016, the court observed DUI counts merged purpose of sentencing, sentenced Appellant period of incarceration of less than seventy-two hours, nor more than six months in Cumberland County Prison DUI. (See N.T. Sentencing, 1/19/16, at 4). This timely appeal followed.3 raises two questions on appeal.
I. Did abuse its discretion admitting then considering [Appellant's] statement to police violation of the corpus delecti [sic] rule?
II. Was the evidence presented at trial sufficient sustain conviction on all charges when no offered to prove [Appellant] drove the vehicle on anything but private road? During trial, girlfriend, Erlina Puchalsky, testified; however, trial court found her testimony be not credible fabricated an attempt create defense for Appellant. Trial Ct. Op., 3; N.T. Trial, at 81). Pursuant to the court's order, Appellant filed concise statement of
errors complained of appeal on March 9, 2016. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The trial court entered opinion June 30, 2016. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). (Appellant's Brief, 6) (most capitalization omitted).
In first issue, Appellant claims the trial court erred when it admitted considered Appellant's statements to Sergeant Stambaugh, because the Commonwealth did not meet burden, pursuant the corpus delicti rule. 13-21). Specifically, argues Commonwealth did not establish the corpus delicti, drunk driving occurred, before the court admitted considered confession. (See id. at 13). disagree.
The corpus delicti rule is a rule evidence. Our standard of review appeals challenging an evidentiary ruling of trial is limited a determination whether court abused its discretion. The corpus delicti rule places the burden the prosecution establish a crime has actually occurred before a confession or admission of the accused connecting him to the crime can be admitted. The corpus delicti is literally body of the crime; it consists of proof a loss or injury has occurred a result of the criminal conduct of someone. The criminal responsibility of the accused loss or injury is a component of the rule. The historical purpose rule is prevent a conviction based solely upon confession or admission, where fact no crime has been committed. The corpus delicti may be by circumstantial evidence.
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 828 A.2d 1094, 1103-04 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, 842 A.2d 406 2004) (citation omitted).
"Establishing the corpus delicti is a two-step process. The first is admission, which requires showing by preponderance of the evidence. The second consideration fact -finder, which requires showing of the corpus delicti doubt." v. Herb, 852 A.2d 356, 363 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted). Thus, order consider Appellant's statement, the Commonwealth needed prove a doubt that there was sufficient independent that he: (1) drove vehicle, (2) after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol he was rendered incapable of safely driving. 75 3802(a)(1).
Here, Sergeant Stambaugh's testimony demonstrated when he arrived at the scene, he observed Appellant's stuck on an embankment (See N.T. Trial, 7-8). Appellant walked up at the end of the road. Sergeant Stambaugh's police vehicle staggered as he approached. (See id. at 8). then confirmed he driver of the van. (See id.).4 Sergeant Stambaugh testified Appellant's eyes were glassy, his speech was slurred, took him few seconds to respond to Sergeant Stambaugh's question whether driving or not. id. at 9). While waiting for Appellant provide insurance registration information, Sergeant Stambaugh noticed strong odor of from Appellant. (See at 10). Appellant fumbled with keys, dropping them twice and unsteadily picking them up, and then produced the registration for trailer "The identity person responsible the criminal act not part of the corpus delicti[,]" thus, the rule does apply statement driver of the vehicle. v. Zugay, 745 A.2d 639, 652 Super. 2000), appeal denied, 795 A.2d (Pa. 2000) (citation omitted). id.). Appellant later admitted Sergeant
instead of van. Stambaugh that he crashed while coming friend's house in Mechanicsburg, where drank alcohol, and that alcohol contributed crash. (See at 12).
Given this evidence, we conclude that the admission of Appellant's statements that "drinking heavily that day and that likely contributed crash[,]" and "that he had not had anything drink after crash[,]" proper under the corpus delicti rule. (Trial Ct. Op., at 3). Prior to introducing the statements, the Commonwealth was crashed on an embankment, that showed signs intoxication. Thus, it established preponderance of the evidence crime, drunk driving, occurred, admission of the confession proper. See Rivera, supra at 1103-04; §§ 3802(a)(1), (c).
Furthermore, although did not specifically state record whether it was satisfied the corpus delicti of the crimes charged were proven beyond reasonable doubt before considered Appellant's admissions, the circumstantial reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, even without the admission, were sufficient convict Appellant driving under the influence. are satisfied the Commonwealth demonstrated doubt the corpus delicti, drunk driving occurred. Herb, supra n.3; Rivera, supra 1103-04. Thus, conclude trial court did abuse discretion by
- - admitting considering Appellant's statements. Appellant's first issue does merit relief.
In second issue, Appellant claims the evidence was insufficient convict him driving under the influence. (See Appellant's Brief at 22- 26). Specifically, argues that the Commonwealth failed prove the road which drove trafficway.5 (See id.). disagree.
Our standard of review challenge the sufficiency of the well settled. "In evaluating claim, must determine whether, viewing evidence light most favorable the in Commonwealth as verdict winner, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, trier of fact could have found each and every element of doubt." crimes charged a v. Zabierowsky, 730 A.2d 987, 988-89 Super. 1999) (citations omitted).
Appellant convicted of three counts of DUI, violations of Chapter 38 Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, which "apply upon highways and trafficways throughout this Commonwealth." 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3101(b). Thus, the Commonwealth must establish offenses occurred highway or trafficway. See Zabierowsky, supra at 989. Trafficway is defined "[t]he entire width between property lines does not allege the Commonwealth failed prove any of other elements of offenses. (See Appellant's Brief, at 22-26). or other boundary lines of every way or place of which any part is open the public purposes of vehicular travel as matter right or custom." 75 102. "Pennsylvania law recognizes roadways in private areas, or areas restricted permit -holders, can still meet the 'public use' . DUI statute." v. requirement for purposes of . . Lees, A.3d 185, 189 Super. 2016) (collecting cases) (holding parking lot serving housing complexes marked with sign stating "Private Property," but which non-residents as mailmen, deliverymen, visitors used, was trafficway).
Preliminarily, we note that, viewing the evidence light most favorable the Commonwealth verdict winner, we agree with trial court's conclusion the Commonwealth clearly that Appellant drove vehicle from Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, place where it Silver Spring Township, crashed West Willow Terrace Road, Pennsylvania. N.T. Trial, at 80). Thus, claim only drove West Willow Terrace Road, which alleges is private road and therefore not trafficway, is belied by the record. Moreover, find no merit Appellant's argument West Willow Terrace Road trafficway.
Here, the evidence established that, the township considered West Willow Terrace Road private road, it contained signs either end stating "private road, please, miles per hour." (N.T. Trial, at 51; see id. 33-36). However, it was open to the public served eleven or
- - twelve private residences located along it. Thus, we conclude "is open to the public purposes vehicular travel matter right or custom[,]" therefore trafficway purposes of Chapter of the Vehicle Code. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 102; see Lees, supra at 189; Zabierowsky, supra 988-89; 3101(b). Accordingly, conclude the evidence established drove trafficway after imbibing could not safely operate it. Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3802(a)(1). Appellant's second issue does merit relief.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
J seph D. Seletyn,
Prothonotary
Date: 2/28/2017