The Superior Court began the opinion in Commonwealth v. Given by letting the appellant know all the ways in which he waived his claims and filed a bad brief. But the Court sua sponte addressed a sentencing issue. The appellant was convicted of two counts of DUI, one count for having marijuana in his bloodstream, … Read more
In Commonwealth v. Donoughe, the defendant was charged with DUI and accepted into the ARD program. Pursuant to a written policy, ninety days after the defendant was accepted into ARD, the Pennsylvania State Police destroyed the mobile recording video of the arrest. But the defendant got kicked out of ARD and proceeded to trial. He … Read more
In Commonwealth v. Clemens, the Superior Court was asked to decide whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for DUI-General Impairment and Resisting Arrest. Given the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the opinion covered the facts in great detail. The Court held that, even though the officers never explicitly stated to Clements … Read more
In State v. Faber, the NJ Appellate Division held that, as part of the defendant’s sentence for DWI, the Law Division failed to include mandatory participation in the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center. Because this omission rendered it an illegal sentence, the case was remanded. Furthermore, when the Law Division granted the defendant’s application to stay … Read more
The defendant in Commonwealth v. Brown argued that the trial court erred when it imposed a sentence above the mandatory minimum for DUI, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(2), an ungraded misdemeanor and his first such offense in ten years. The PA Superior Court affirmed the sentence, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion when … Read more
If you live in NJ and have kids, read Estate of Narleski v. Gomes. Here, the NJ Supreme Court held that an underage adult defendant may be held civilly liable to a third party drunk driving victim if 3 elements are met: 1. the defendant facilitated the use of alcohol by making their home available … Read more
In State v. Faber, the Appellate Division remanded, holding that the lower court failed to reference either the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center (IDRC) or the necessity of an ignition interlock device in it’s sentencing order.
In Commonwealth v. Gaston, the defendant’s DUI prosecution was in the pretrial stage when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Birchfield v. North Dakota. The defendant moved to suppress his blood draw based on Birchfield, but the Superior Court held that the evidence need not be suppressed because the defendant consented to the … Read more
In Commonwealth v. Hajdarevic, the Superior Court held that the Confrontation Clause applies to evidence presented by the Commonwealth to establish the time of a blood draw in a DUI case because, under Section 3802 of the Motor Vehicles Code, the Commonwealth is required to prove that the defendant’s blood alcohol content within two hours … Read more
In Commonwealth v. Pammer, the Superior Court dismissed a DUI prosecution because the Commonwealth failed to comply with the compulsory joinder rule found in 18 Pa.C.S. § 110. The defendant had been charged with traffic offenses stemming from the same incident as the DWI charge and pled to summonses for those traffic offenses before a magisterial … Read more