 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dorsey v. Commonwealth3/11/2004
ocuments, the Compact requirements are typically unsatisfied. In contrast, where the proffered documents reference the licensing authority for the reporting state, the requirements are satisfied.
"We have not... required [reporting] documents to contain a specific phrase or language to show their origin, as to do so would add contractual language to the Compact which à we are not permitted to do." Kilgore, 832 A.2d 595.
Rather, " ur analysis turns on whether the evidence offered contains indicia on its face that it was sent from the licensing authority à." McCord v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 834 A.2d 1257, 1259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).
"[These] indicia need not be on the report itself, but may derive from extrinsic documentation." Id.
In McCord, PennDOT presented to the same trial court as in this case an envelope with the Wyoming licensing authority listed as the return address. The trial court received the conviction report and envelope, but it sustained the licensee's appeal. We reversed the trial court, holding the envelope constituted sufficient extrinsic evidence that the report was received from the Compact state's licensing authority.
As in McCord, the envelope offered by PennDOT contains an indication of transmission by the licensing authority of the reporting state. Unlike, McCord, however, it is unclear whether the envelope was admitted into evidence or even considered by the trial court, as no mention was made of it.
In fairness, the trial judge here did not have the benefit of our decision in McCord when he decided this case. Nevertheless, the trial court did not address this issue, although it was raised in PennDOT's 1925(b) statement. "When the resolution of an issue is significant in the determination of an appeal, an appellate court should not attempt to substitute its judgment as a fact finder, but rather, should remand the matter to the trial court or other fact finder à." Lanard & Axilbund, Inc. v. Muscara, 575 A.2d 615, 619 (Pa. Super. 1990).
It is beyond our review to make factual determinations. Accordingly, we reluctantly remand this matter to permit the trial court to consider this issue.
This appeal is affirmed, in part, and vacated and remanded in part.
ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 11th day of March, 2004, the appeal in the above captioned matter is affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded in part. The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County shall issue its supplemental opinion within sixty days of the date of this order.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|