In Pennsylvania, DUI charges often hinge on the totality of circumstances observed during a traffic stop, as well as the defendant’s compliance with requests for chemical testing. A recent Pennsylvania decision issued in a DUI case highlights the evidentiary considerations in such cases, particularly when a defendant refuses chemical testing. If you are charged with a DUI crime, it is essential to understand your rights, and you should speak to a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney as soon as possible.
History of the Case
It is reported that the defendant was stopped by for traffic violations, including driving without headlights and failing to signal lane changes. Allegedly, upon approaching the defendant’s vehicle, the arresting officer observed a strong odor of burnt marijuana and noted that the defendant admitted to smoking a marijuana blunt shortly before the stop. The defendant also admitted to consuming alcohol approximately an hour and a half prior to the stop.
Reportedly, the officer conducted field sobriety tests, during which the defendant exhibited multiple signs of impairment, including difficulty maintaining balance and following instructions. Based on these observations, the officer arrested the defendant on suspicion of DUI and requested that he submit to a blood test. While the defendant initially agreed to the test, he later refused, thereby depriving the prosecution of potentially corroborative chemical evidence.
The defendant was charged with DUI under Section 3802(d)(3) of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, which prohibits operating a vehicle under the combined influence of drugs and alcohol to a degree that impairs the ability to drive safely. Additional charges included traffic violations for driving without headlights and failing to signal lane changes. Following a bench trial, the defendant was convicted of all charges and sentenced to five years of probation for the DUI offense. The defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction under Section 3802(d)(3).
Establishing Impairment in DUI Cases
On appeal, the defendant contended that the prosecution failed to establish that he was impaired to the extent required by Section 3802(d)(3). The court, however, disagreed. Reviewing the trial court’s findings, the appellate court noted that Section 3802(d)(3) does not require the Commonwealth to present chemical evidence of impairment; rather, impairment may be established through the totality of the factual circumstances.
The court emphasized that the arresting officer’s testimony and observations provided ample evidence of the defendant’s impairment. Specifically, the officer observed erratic driving behavior, detected the odor of burnt marijuana, and noted the defendant’s admission to using both alcohol and marijuana. Moreover, the defendant exhibited multiple indicators of impairment during field sobriety tests, including bloodshot and glassy eyes, swaying, and difficulty performing the tests as instructed.
The court further highlighted the evidentiary impact of the defendant’s refusal to submit to a blood test. Under Pennsylvania law, such refusals can be introduced as evidence of consciousness of guilt. While the refusal alone does not establish impairment, it may be considered alongside other evidence in determining whether the defendant was under the influence.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of sentence.
Speak to a Skilled Pennsylvania DUI Defense Attorney
If you are charged with a DUI offense, it is smart to speak to an attorney about your options. Attorney Zachary B. Cooper is a seasoned Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer who can help you understand your rights and build a strong defense. To schedule a confidential consultation, contact Mr. Cooper via the online form or call (215) 542-0800.