Justia Lawyer Rating
Published on:

by

Drivers the cause fatal collisions while they are intoxicated typically are not only charged with DUI crimes but also with more serious offenses, including aggravated assault and third-degree murder. The prosecution bears the burden of proving a defendant’s guilt for such crimes, and as demonstrated in a recent Pennsylvania DUI case, it can be challenging for it to do so, as it requires proof that the defendant acted with malice. If you are charged with causing a DUI collision, it is in your best interest to speak with a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer about what defenses you may be able to assert as soon as possible.

The Subject Accident

It is alleged that in December 2019, multiple cars were made to the police about a white SUV that was speeding and driving erratically on I-95. Shortly thereafter, police and an ambulance arrived on the scene of an accident between the defendant, who was driving a white SUV that matched the description of the vehicle in the calls made to police, and a van. The van was engulfed in flames.

Reportedly, two of the men in the van were able to extract themselves and seek medical treatment, while the other two died from their injuries. Chemical testing revealed the defendant’s BAC to be .151 percent at the time of the crash. He was charged with third-degree murder, aggravated assault-serious bodily injury, multiple DUI crimes, and other offenses. He was convicted, after which he appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In Pennsylvania DUI cases, the prosecution bears the burden of establishing the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution is unable to offer evidence sufficient to meet this burden, the trier of fact should find the defendant not guilty. In some DUI cases, though, the judge or jury will issue a verdict that does not align with the evidence. Fortunately, defendants who believe they were unjustly convicted of DUI offenses can pursue appeals. They must develop compelling arguments on appeal; however, otherwise, the court will most likely decline to reverse their guilty verdict, as shown in a recent Pennsylvania ruling. If you are accused of a DUI offense, it is advisable to retain a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer to assist you in protecting your rights.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the police responded to a 911 call reporting reckless driving. When the police officer arrived at the parking lot where the call indicated the driver was located, he observed the defendant sitting in the driver’s seat of his parked car. There were no other cars in the lot. The defendant spoke with the defendant, who had a strong odor of alcohol and exhibited signs of intoxication.

It is reported that the defendant refused to submit to a breath test or field sobriety testing. He was arrested and charged with DUI general impairment. Following a bench trial, the judge convicted him as charged. The defendant appealed, arguing that his conviction was against the weight of the evidence. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In many cases in which a person is charged with DUI offenses in Pennsylvania, the prosecution will use evidence of the person’s BAC to establish their guilt. A BAC level over the legal limit is not needed to convict someone of a DUI crime, though; instead, they can be found guilty if the prosecution sets forth evidence of their general impairment. Recently, a Pennsylvania court discussed what constitutes adequate proof of general impairment in a case in which the defendant appealed his DUI conviction. If you are faced with DUI charges, it is smart to talk to a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to determine what defenses you may be able to assert.

The Defendant’s Arrest and Charges

It is alleged that a police officer began to follow the defendant’s vehicle after the defendant made an illegal left turn. The officer saw the defendant drive over the fog line and veer to the right side of the road multiple times; as such, he pulled the defendant over. When the officer spoke with the defendant, he noticed that his eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and his speech was slurred.

It is reported that the defendant submitted to field sobriety tests but refused to submit to blood or breath tests. The defendant was charged with DUI general impairment, and following a non-jury trial, he was convicted. He appealed, arguing that the prosecution lacked sufficient evidence to establish his guilt. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Under Pennsylvania law, people convicted of DUI offenses face more severe penalties if it is their second or subsequent DUI conviction. While this has long been the case, the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code was recently amended to increase the penalties imposed on repeat DUI offenders. Known as Deana’s Law, the amendment was signed into law in July 2022 but did not go into effect until November 2022. If you are charged with a second or subsequent DUI offense, it is important to know what penalties you may face if you are convicted, and you should speak to a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer as soon as possible.

Changes to the DUI Provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code

Act 59 of 2022, sometimes referred to as Deanna’s law, amended section 3803 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code to increase the grading of certain DUI offenses, subsequently allowing for the imposition of greater penalties for such violations. Act 59 of 2022 was named Deanna’s law in honor of Deana DeRosa Eckman of Delaware County, who was killed by an intoxicated motorist with six prior DUI convictions.

Pursuant to the modifications, the following offenses will be charged as a felony of the third degree if the defendant has two prior DUI convictions and a felony of the second degree if the defendant has three or more DUI offenses: DUI general impairment, if the defendant refused to submit to a breath or chemical test; DUI with a BAC of .16 or higher; and, DUI involving controlled substances. Notably, Felonies of the third degree are punishable by up to seven years in prison, and felonies of the second degree are punishable by up to ten years in prison. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Pennsylvania’s statutory sentencing scheme for DUI offenses permits the courts to impose greater penalties for each subsequent DUI conviction. Generally, it is easy to ascertain whether a conviction constitutes a first, second, or third offense. The issue can become convoluted, however, when a defendant faced with DUI charges was previously charged with a DUI crime and entered into an ARD program but was not actually convicted. Recently, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued a ruling addressing the novel question of whether prior acceptance of ARD equates to a prior conviction for purposes of imposing sentences for second or subsequent DUI crimes, ultimately ruling that it did. If you are charged with a second or higher DUI offense, you could face substantial penalties if you are found guilty, and it is critical to talk to a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer about your options for protecting your liberties.

Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was arrested and charged with DUI crimes in July 2019. He was subsequently arrested and charged with a second DUI offense the following month. In February 2020, the defendant entered the ARD program for the charges arising out of his first arrest and then entered a negotiated guilty plea for the charges arising out of his second arrest.

Reportedly, the court deferred sentencing in the second case. Before the sentence was imposed, however, the court ruled that the provisions in the DUI law that equated accepted into ARD to a prior conviction for sentencing purposes were unconstitutional. The court sentenced the defendant as a first time offender, after which the Commonwealth appealed.   Continue reading

Published on:

by

Under Pennsylvania’s DUI laws, it is unlawful for anyone to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance. Controlled substances include not only drugs that were obtained illegally but also medications that were lawfully prescribed by a physician. In other words, simply because a motorist’s use of a controlled substance is lawful does not mean that they cannot be found guilty of DUI while driving under the influence of that substance. This was clarified in a recent Pennsylvania opinion issued in a case in which the court rejected the defendant’s argument that medical marijuana differed from marijuana in that it was not a controlled substance. If you are accused of a DUI offense, it is in your best interest to speak to a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney about your possible defenses.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that an officer observed the defendant driving erratically. As such, the officer pulled the defendant over and began to question him. The defendant submitted to field tests which indicated to the officer that the defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance. As such, the officer arrested the defendant for suspicion of DUI.

Reportedly, a subsequent blood test indicated that the defendant had marijuana compounds and the metabolites of such compounds in his system. He was charged with driving while under the influence of a controlled substance and, following a trial, was found guilty as charged. He appealed, arguing that medical marijuana was not a controlled substance. Continue reading

Published on:

by

A conviction for a DUI crime does more than just show up on your driving record; it is a criminal conviction that can result in a lengthy prison sentence. While the Pennsylvania courts have some degree of discretion in determining what constitutes an appropriate sentence in a DUI case, the sentences they issue must be reasonable; if they are not, they may be appealable. Recently, a Pennsylvania court issued a ruling discussing what constitutes a reasonable sentence in a DUI case, in a matter in which it ultimately rejected the defendant’s request to vacate his sentence. If you are charged with a DUI crime, it is prudent to talk to a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney about what measures you can take to protect your rights.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was arrested and charged with DUI crimes on three separate occasions within the span of 13 months. He pleaded guilty in all three cases and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 69 months and 270 days to 192 months and 270 days, which included consecutive 90 day sentences for driving while his license was suspended. He filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied. He then appealed.

Demonstrating a DUI Sentence Constitutes an Abuse of Discretion

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing such a lengthy sentence. Before addressing the defendant’s specific challenges to his sentences, the court examined whether his sentences were lawful, noting that it had the authority to address illegal sentences on its own accord. Continue reading

Published on:

by

The Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions protect people from unreasonable searches. This means, among other things, that a DUI suspect cannot be compelled to submit to a blood test absent a warrant. There are some exceptions to this rule, though, such as when exigent circumstances exist. Recently, a Pennsylvania court discussed what constitutes an adequate urgent situation to allow the warrant requirement to be set aside in a DUI case in which the defendant appealed his conviction. If you are accused of a DUI offense, it is crucial to understand your rights, and you should speak to a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney as soon as possible.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant drove his car onto train tracks, after which a train collided with the car and pushed it a quarter of a mile. When first responders arrived at the scene of the accident, the defendant was outside of his vehicle while his fiancé and their daughter were still inside the car. The fiancé was pronounced dead at the scene, and the defendant and his daughter were transported to the hospital for treatment.

It is reported that an officer that investigated the accident smelled marijuana coming from the car. Thus, he directed another officer to interview the defendant at the hospital and obtain a legal blood draw. When that officer arrived at the hospital, the defendant was restrained and drifting in and out of consciousness, and could not consent to a blood test. His blood was drawn prior to the officer’s arrival, though. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Typically, DUI charges arise out of traffic stops. The police must have reasonable grounds for pulling a motorist over, however, and if they do not, the Commonwealth may be precluded from introducing the evidence obtained via the stop at trial, regardless of how persuasive it is. Recently, a Pennsylvania court discussed probable cause in a ruling in which it ultimately dismissed an order suppressing the results of a chemical test in a DUI case. If you are accused of driving while intoxicated, it is smart to talk to a Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney to assess your potential defenses.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that a police officer observed the defendant driving on a highway for two and a half miles in the middle of the night. During that time, he saw the defendant meander over the fog line several times. He subsequently pulled the defendant over and, when speaking with him, noticed an odor of alcohol on his breath. The defendant was asked to submit to a field sobriety test; he agreed and performed some of the tasks incorrectly. He then agreed to submit to a breath test. Following the test, the officer arrested the defendant. The defendant moved to suppress the results of the breath test at trial, arguing that the officer had reasonable cause to stop the defendant. The trial court granted the motion, and the Commonwealth appealed.

Probable Cause to Arrest a DUI Suspect

On appeal, the court agreed with the Commonwealth and reversed the trial court ruling. The court explained that in order to arrest the defendant for DUI, the officer needed to have probable cause to believe that the defendant was impaired to the extent that he could not drive safely. Probable cause is present when the circumstances and facts that are within the officer’s knowledge at the time of the arrest and that they believe constitute reasonably trustworthy information are adequate to merit a reasonable person to develop the belief that the suspect has committed or is about to commit a crime. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Under Pennsylvania law, people can be convicted of DUI crimes even if they are not observed driving while intoxicated. The prosecution must nonetheless prove that a crime actually occurred in order to prove a DUI defendant’s guilt, though, and if they cannot, the charges against the defendant should be dismissed. This concept, known as corpus delecti, was the topic of a recent Pennsylvania ruling in which the court upheld the defendant’s DUI conviction. If you are charged with a DUI crime, it is prudent to confer with a Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer to determine what defenses you may be able to set forth.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the police responded to a call indicating there was a vehicle on the side of a highway. When they arrived at the scene, they found the defendant standing on the side of the road with a gash and a lump on his head. When they spoke with him, he smelled of alcohol and was unsteady on his feet. He stated he had been drinking earlier in the day and had driven to his current location.

It is alleged that the defendant was taken to the hospital, where he consented to a blood draw which revealed his BAC to be over twice the legal limit. He was charged with DUI – the highest rate. He moved to have his incriminating statements precluded from evidence pursuant to the corpus delecti rule, but the court denied his motion. He was convicted, after which he appealed. Continue reading