 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McDonald v. Commonwealth3/17/1998
rom her by Officer Hajdak, and that she was willing to provide a blood sample. The question before us is whether McDonald refused to submit to a chemical test as a matter oflaw under the facts found by the trial court, not under the testimony the Department prefers. See Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Ingram, 538 Pa. 236, 648 A.2d 285 (1994) (questions of credibility and conflicts of evidence in license suspension cases are for the trial court to resolve). The sequence of events, based upon the findings of the trial court, is as follows: Officer Hajdak handed McDonald the form containing the information substantially quoted above. Officer Hajdak read the form aloud while McDonald read the form silently. This procedure confused McDonald. McDonald then read the form on her own. McDonald was confused about certain matters and questioned Officer Hajdak about her right to call an attorney or other persons and the difference between civil and criminal proceedings. Officer Hajdak answered her questions. During this time, McDonald began to sign the form. The form was taken from McDonald, and McDonald took the form back to sign. The form was taken from her again before she could complete her signature. McDonald was agreeing to submit to the blood test by signing the form; and this was apparently understood by Officer Hajdak, otherwise there was no reason to prevent McDonald from signing the form when the Officer told McDonald that he was registering McDonald's response as a refusal. McDonald's questioning took ten to fifteen minutes according to Officer Hajdak's testimony. This Court has held that it is not a refusal, for purposes of Section 1547(b) of the Vehicle Code, when a licensee delays a decision because of confusion as to his or her rights and then assents to submit to a chemical test when those rights are made clear. Armstrong v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 695 A.2d 930 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). That is essentially the situation presented to us in this appeal. McDonald began to sign the form provided her, acknowledging her assent to a blood test, after Officer Hajdak explained the matters that confused her on the form. We thus cannot determine that ten to fifteen minutes of questioning concerning the licensee's rights when confused constitutes a refusal. See also Ingram (although motorist was provided withthe warnings required by law regarding the implied consent law, the trial court's credibility determination that the motorist was confused concerning his rights is sufficient to sustain the motorist's appeal of his or her license suspension). We understand that Officer Hajdak's testimony presented a different picture of McDonald's behavior and seriousness than that presented by McDonald and, if accepted as credible, could support a legaldetermination that McDonald refused to submit to the blood test for purposes of Section 1547(b) ofthe Vehicle Code. That is not the case before us, however. The case before us sets forth unchallenged findings of fact based upon the credible testimony of the licensee. Accordingly, the trial court must be affirmed.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of March, 1998, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.
CHARLES P. MIRARCHI, JR., Senior Judge
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|