Under Pennsylvania law, people should not be convicted of DUI crimes unless the prosecution establishes their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Doing so does not necessarily require the Commonwealth to introduce concrete evidence of a DUI defendant’s intoxication, however. Rather, as demonstrated in a recent Pennsylvania opinion issued in a DUI case, in many instances, circumstantial evidence is deemed sufficient to prove a defendant operated a vehicle while intoxicated. If you are accused of driving while under the influence in violation of Pennsylvania law, it is advisable to confer with a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer to assess your avenues for seeking a favorable outcome.
History of the Case
It is reported that in January 2022, the defendant drove a friend from a halfway house to the friend’s girlfriend’s house, approximately two hours away. The defendant dropped the friend off at his girlfriend’s house around 12:30 p.m. and spent several hours at a bar nearby. The defendant picked up the friend around 6:00 p.m., and they began the return drive. During the journey, the friend observed the defendant driving at a high speed, tailgating, and exhibiting aggressive behavior toward other vehicles.
Allegedly, around 7:00 p.m., the vehicle crashed, striking a guardrail and overturning, resulting in the friend sustaining severe injuries. A police officer arrived at the scene and observed signs of intoxication in the defendant, including the smell of alcohol on his breath, bloodshot eyes, and poor performance on field sobriety tests. The defendant was arrested and later refused to submit to a breath test. Following a non-jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of DUI, and the court sentenced him to three to six months’ incarceration. The defendant appealed.
Evidence Sufficient to Establish Guilt in DUI Cases
On appeal, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his DUI conviction, arguing that the Commonwealth failed to demonstrate that he was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that he was incapable of safe driving. The court affirmed the conviction, however, citing the well-reasoned trial court opinion.
The court stated that the presented, including the arresting officer’s observations of the defendant’s impairment, the friend’s testimony regarding the defendant’s reckless driving behavior, and the defendant’s admission to consuming alcohol before driving, sufficiently established the defendant’s impairment due to alcohol consumption.
The court further emphasized the combination of evidence, including the defendant’s poor performance on field sobriety tests, linked him to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Drawing parallels to a similar case, the court concluded that the evidence supported the defendant’s conviction for DUI, rejecting his claim of insufficient evidence. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
Talk to an Experienced Pennsylvania DUI Defense Attorney
If you are charged with a DUI crime, you should talk to an attorney to discuss your rights and potential defenses. Attorney Zachary B. Cooper is an experienced Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer who is adept at helping people protect their liberties, and if you hire him, he will advocate aggressively on your behalf. You can reach him to set up a confidential and free consultation by filling out the online form or calling (215) 542-0800.