In most DUI cases, the Commonwealth will rely on the results of a blood or breath test to support the argument that the defendant was operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Under Pennsylvania implied consent law, drivers are deemed to agree to submit to breath tests and can face penalties for…
Articles Posted in DUI Appeal
Pennsylvania Court Discusses the Corpus Delicti Rule in DUI Cases
People often think of DUI charges as arising out of direct evidence that a person operated a vehicle while intoxicated, but in many instances, the prosecution’s evidence is solely circumstantial. While circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict a person for a crime, a conviction that rests solely on information from…
Pennsylvania Court Discusses Evidence of DUI General Impairment
While many DUI charges in Pennsylvania arise out of a breath or blood test indicating a BAC over the legal limit, such test results are not required. Instead, a person can be charged with a DUI offense if an officer believes that there is sufficient evidence of impairment due to…
Court Affirms Pennsylvania DUI Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence
Many people who are stopped for suspicion of DUI are reluctant to submit to a blood test and believe that if the Commonwealth does not obtain their blood alcohol level, the prosecution will not be able to obtain a conviction. As illustrated in a recent Pennsylvania DUI case, though, such…
Court Discusses Evidence Sufficient to Sustain a Pennsylvania DUI General Impairment Conviction
Although the Pennsylvania statute prohibiting people from operating a vehicle on a public roadway while incapable of doing so safely due to the consumption of alcohol is referred to as a DUI statute, a person does not need to be stopped while driving a vehicle to be convicted of a…
Pennsylvania Court Discusses the Entrapment Defense in DUI Cases
Although entrapment is not a defense commonly asserted in DUI cases, that does not mean it is not viable. A defendant alleging entrapment faces a high burden of proof, however, and the defense is often unsuccessful. This was demonstrated in a recent case ruled on by a Pennsylvania appellate court,…
Pennsylvania Court Discusses Regulations Governing the Use of Breathalyzer Tests
In the majority of cases in which a defendant is charged with a DUI offense, the Commonwealth will rely on the results of the defendant’s breathalyzer test as evidence of the defendant’s guilt. Thus, if a defendant can prove that the test was administered via a faulty breathalyzer machine, he…
Pennsylvania Court Discusses Vacating Convictions and Sentences Post-Birchfield
Due to the Supreme Court of the United States’ Ruling in Birchfield v. North Dakota the landscape of DUI law in Pennsylvania and throughout the country continues to change. In other words, not only have many states modified laws that were deemed unconstitutional, but many convictions have been vacated as…
Court Discusses Extrapolatory Evidence in Pennsylvania Cases Involving Per Se DUI
In Pennsylvania, there are numerous DUI offenses a defendant may be charged with committing. For example, a defendant with a blood alcohol level of 0.15% or higher may be charged with driving under the influence – highest rate of alcohol. To prove a defendant is guilty of DUI – highest…
Pennsylvania Court Discusses When Miranda Warnings are Necessary in a DUI Case
It is widely known that the Constitution grants criminal defendants rights against self-incrimination. In other words, a defendant cannot be compelled to make incriminating statements. In many instances, even if a defendant makes statements that would tend to indicate guilt, the statements may be precluded at trial, if the defendant…