 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Bullick8/4/2003
se of Commonwealth v. Scofield, 521 A.2d 40 (Pa. Super. 1987). The Court set forth the relevant facts as such:
In Scofield, the defendant was driving his vehicle and scraping his car against the bumper of a vehicle parked on the street. Sparks were flying and the defendant travelled another ten feet in this manner before swerving onto the sidewalk and striking a building. A nearby cabdriver realized that the defendant had struck a pedestrian who was under the right fender of the defendant's vehicle. The cabdriver directed the defendant to turn the car off and even attempted to reach into the car to remove the keys from the ignition. The defendant became belligerent, hit the cabdriver and attempted to bite him. The defendant then unsuccessfully tried to put his car into reverse, but a flat tire prevented his flight. As a result of the incident, the pedestrian's leg was amputated.
Comer, 716 A.2d at 596. Distinguishing Scofield the Court observed " hus the defendant considered, then disregarded, the threat to the life of the victim. These circumstances demonstrate a higher degree of recklessness than those presented in the instant case." Id. at 597.
17 A similar result can be gleaned from Commonwealth v. Huggins, 790 A.2d 1042 (Pa. Super. 2002), which dealt with a conviction for involuntary manslaughter, a first degree misdemeanor. In Huggins, the defendant was carrying 24 occupants in a 15-passenger van, was speeding, and fell asleep. Id. Despite all this, we held that Huggins' conduct "may establish negligence, but it does not, standing alone, establish the mens rea of recklessness..." because it could not be shown that he "'consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk' that death would result from his actions." Id. at 1047. In considering the fact that Huggins fell asleep, we noted that falling asleep at the wheel may constitute careless driving, for which the mens rea is a "careless disregard of the rights and safety of others," id.; 75 Pa.C.S. § 3714, but not recklessness that requires conscious disregard.
18 From the above discussions, we can determine that the mens rea necessary to support the offense of reckless driving is a requirement that Appellant drove in such a manner that there existed a substantial risk that injury would result from his driving, i.e., a high probability that a motor vehicle accident would result from driving in that manner, that he was aware of that risk and yet continued to drive in such a manner, in essence, callously disregarding the risk he was creating by his own reckless driving. We do not believe the evidence of record is sufficient to prove this element.
19 Since the Commonwealth presented no eyewitnesses to the accident, the Commonwealth is necessarily relying upon circumstantial evidence to prove that Appellant drove recklessly as contemplated in the subject offense. The Commonwealth may prove recklessness by circumstantial evidence; however, "the pieces of evidence must fit together so tightly as to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." See Commonwealth v. Hogan, 468 A.2d 493, 496 (Pa. Super. 1983); Commonwealth v. Patterson, 390 A.2d 784, 790 (Pa. Super. 1978). The entirely circumstantial case presented by the Commonwealth is essentially limited to skid marks that appeared to lead to a damaged vehicle and the assumption that Appellant was drinking before the accident. As Appellant correctly notes, the Commonwealth presented no expert witness such as an accident reconstructionist, who may have offered important insight as to the nature of the accident. Most importantly, there were no eyewitnesses to corroborate the Commonwealth's theory.
20 The Commonwealth makes much of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|