Opinion
J-A10015-18 No. 2463 EDA 2017
07-03-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. DANIEL DAVID GAUGHAN Appellee
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order June 30, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-45-CR-0002489-2016 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and RANSOM, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from the order entered in the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas, which granted in part the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed on behalf of Appellee, Daniel David Gaughan, and dismissed all the counts with a mens rea of recklessness or gross negligence, arising from a multiple motor vehicle accident, for failure to present a prima facie case on those counts. We affirm.
See Commonwealth v. Huggins , 575 Pa. 395, 836 A.2d 862 (2003) (stating generally that mens rea of recklessness and gross negligence in criminal context are fundamentally equivalent).
Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 311(d), the Commonwealth has certified in its notice of appeal that the trial court's order substantially handicapped or terminated the prosecution of the Commonwealth's case against Appellee. Accordingly, this appeal is properly before us for review.
The trial court opinion sets forth the relevant facts of this case as follows:
As a result of a fatal automobile accident in which two persons were killed and three others injured, [Appellee] was arrested and charged with two counts of Homicide by Vehicle, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3732; two counts of Involuntary Manslaughter, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 250[4](a); four counts of Aggravated Assault by Vehicle 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3732.1 (A), five counts of Recklessly Endangering Another Person ("REAP"), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705; and several traffic offenses including Reckless Driving, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3736(a), Careless Driving, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3714(a); Traffic Control Signals, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3112(A)(3)(i); Following too Closely, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3310(A); and Driving at a Safe Speed, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3361. [Appellee] waived his right to a preliminary hearing and the charges were bound to court. Subsequently, [Appellee] filed an omnibus motion which included a petition for habeas corpus relief seeking dismissal of all charges.
At [the] hearing on [Appellee]'s motion, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of Stroud Area Regional Police Department officer Kenneth Palmer, who qualified as an expert in accident reconstruction, and submitted several exhibits, including Officer Palmer's accident reconstruction report, his certifications, and an autopsy report and death certificate for the decedents. [Appellee] did not present evidence. The record was left open for the Commonwealth to submit medical evidence regarding the victims referenced in Counts 5 and 6. No additional evidence was submitted. Both parties asked for and were granted leave to file briefs. [Appellee] submitted a brief; the Commonwealth did not.
Based on the record presented by the parties, the relevant facts, summarized in light of the applicable standards, are as follows:
On October 13, 2014, at approximately 9:43 a.m., [Appellee] was driving a Volvo tractor trailer, without cargo, south on State Route 209 in Stroud Township, Monroe County toward the intersection of Route 209 and Schafers Schoolhouse Road. At that time, there were no adverse road, weather, or lighting conditions, the roadway was dry, and it was daylight.
Route 209 is a four lane road, with two southbound and two northbound lanes of travel. At the intersection, there is additionally a left turn lane. Traveling south, site distance to the intersection is extensive and unobstructed.
The intersection is controlled by a traffic signal. As [Appellee] approached, the signal was red. When a Honda Civic travelling south in front of [Appellee] slowed for the red light, [Appellee]'s tractor trailer rear-ended the car. The Civic was spun off the road and then back into the southbound travel lane where it was again struck by [Appellee]'s tractor trailer. The tractor trailer continued through the intersection and collided with a pickup. Tragically, the two backseat passengers in the Civic were killed, and the driver and passenger were injured. The driver of the pickup was also injured.
Officer Palmer responded to the scene, conducted an investigation, and prepared a report. Officer Palmer's investigation revealed that the collision occurred as summarized above. In addition, there were no pre-impact skid marks. A review of the tractor trailer's Electronic Control Module, or "black box," revealed that [Appellee] did not brake until one-quarter to one-half of a second before impact and that prior to impact, [Appellee] was travelling 53 miles per hour, two miles less than the posted speed limit. Inspection of the Civic and pickup revealed that there were no mechanical failures relating to either vehicle that contributed to the accident. Similarly, inspection of the tractor trailer did not reveal any mechanical failures that caused or contributed to the accident, although the airbrakes could not properly be checked because the brake lines could not be activated.
On completion of his investigation, Officer Palmer issued a report that included six conclusions regarding the incident. He testified about his conclusions during the hearing. The first conclusion is that environmental and roadway factors did not contribute to the collision. The second and third conclusions determined the Civic
and pickup did not have any pre-collision defects that contributed to the collision. The fourth conclusion has three subparts: a) one-half of a second before impact the tractor trailer was moving at 53 MPH with no braking; b) one-quarter of a second before impact the tractor trailer was moving at 53 MPH with the service brake applied; and c) at first impact, the tractor trailer was moving at 43 MPH with the service brake applied. The fifth and sixth conclusions state that the two decedents died as a result of blunt force trauma sustained in the collision, that the three other victims were...injured as a result of the collision, and that the collision occurred because [Appellee] "failed to react to approaching traffic conditions."
Neither alcohol nor controlled substances played a part in the tragedy. An evaluation of [Appellee]'s cell phone to determine whether he had been using it at the time of the accident was inconclusive. No evidence was presented as to observations or statements of eye witnesses, if any, the manner in which [Appellee] was driving before the accident, his prior activities, his physical, mental or emotional condition, how long he had been driving that day or that week, or his driver's log book.
After hearing the evidence and reviewing [Appellee]'s brief and the applicable law, we issued the challenged order which, as noted, dismissed all offenses that carry a mens rea of recklessness. We did not dismiss the remaining summary traffic offenses because the Commonwealth had unquestionably established a prima facie case of those charges.
1. [Appellee's] Motion for Habeas Corpus Relief is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED as to the counts 1 through 13 and 18, all of which charge crimes that require a mens rea of recklessness. The motion is DENIED as to counts 14 through 17, all of which charge crimes that do not require a mens rea of recklessness....
In broad summary, the Commonwealth failed to demonstrate in the evidence on record that
[Appellee's] failure to recognize the traffic ahead of him arose from any affirmative conduct, as opposed to inadvertence or inattentiveness. While the evidence presented to the [c]ourt was sufficient to demonstrate carelessness or negligence, it did not present a basis to conclude [Appellee] was engaging in any conduct that would elevate his culpability to a conscious disregard of a substantial risk to reach the requisite level of recklessness. In this regard, the Commonwealth did not file a brief to discuss the element of mens rea or point to facts which, under the law, established a prima facie case of recklessness.
(Trial Court Opinion, filed September 11, 2017, at 2-5) (internal footnotes and citations omitted). The trial court did ordered the Commonwealth on July 31, 2017, to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The Commonwealth timely complied on August 11, 2017.
(Order, dated June 30, 2017, ¶1). [Appellee] has not challenged our denial of his motion as to the summary traffic offenses. The Commonwealth filed this appeal.
The Commonwealth raises the following issue on appeal:
DID THE COMMONWEALTH PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF RECKLESSNESS OR GROSS NEGLIGENCE TO SUSTAIN THE NECESSARY PRIMA FACIE BURDEN AT A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING WITH REGARD TO THE CHARGES OF HOMICIDE BY VEHICLE, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT BY VEHICLE, INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER, RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING ANOTHER PERSON, AND RECKLESS DRIVING?(Commonwealth's Brief at 3).
The Commonwealth argues Appellee drove his tractor-trailer on a major roadway, at an unsafe speed of 53 mph, failed to apply his brakes until a quarter of a second before striking the first vehicle twice, failed to stop at a red light, and struck a second vehicle. The roadway is straight and flat for approximately a half-mile, with an unobstructed view of the red traffic signal and of warning lights indicating the presence of a red traffic signal. The Commonwealth submits this circumstantial evidence established a prima facie case as to recklessness or gross negligence, for counts one through thirteen and count eighteen. The Commonwealth concludes this Court should reverse the order dismissing the charges at issue and reinstate them. We disagree.
We emphasize that a pre-trial habeas decision is not subject to an abuse of discretion standard. Commonwealth v. Karetny , 583 Pa. 514, 880 A.2d 505 (2005). A pre-trial habeas decision on the Commonwealth's prima facie case for a charged crime is a question of law subject to plenary review. Commonwealth v. Dantzler , 135 A.3d 1109, 1112 (Pa.Super. 2016) (en banc) (citing Karetny , supra ).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Jonathan Mark, we conclude the Commonwealth's issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion fully discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion at pages 6-13) (finding: record shows Commonwealth failed to demonstrate accident occurred from any affirmative conduct of Appellee, as opposed to his inattentiveness; Commonwealth presented evidence sufficient to demonstrate negligence, but it did not present any basis to conclude Appellee engaged in conduct to elevate his culpability to conscious disregard of substantial risk to reach requisite mens rea of recklessness; Commonwealth's case is that fatal accident occurred because Appellee simply did not appreciate slowing traffic before him in his travel lane, which absent more, is insufficient to carry charges requiring mens rea of recklessness; Commonwealth failed to create jury question involving Appellee's activities, state of mind, health, physical condition, or fitness to drive; Commonwealth's evidence perhaps established negligence or carelessness or momentary inattentiveness but not enough to raise permissible inference of recklessness; despite tragic nature of this case, record does not support mens rea for contested charges). We agree.
Further, we reject the Commonwealth's reliance on Commonwealth v. Grimes , 842 A.2d 432 (Pa.Super. 2004) and Commonwealth v. Seibert , 799 A.2d 54 (Pa.Super. 2002), as those cases are both procedurally and substantively inapposite. Here, the Commonwealth is appealing from a pre-trial habeas corpus decision. The cases the Commonwealth cites involved the defendants' appeals following jury verdicts. Moreover, the facts of the Grimes and Seibert cases included additional relevant factors which established the mens rea of recklessness. For example, in Grimes , the evidence showed the defendant had weaved all over the roadway and repeatedly swerved into oncoming traffic an estimated ten to twenty times, failed to apply his brakes, and made no attempt to avoid hitting the victim's car. In Seibert , the evidence showed the defendant drove into oncoming traffic and struck a tractor-trailer head-on. Here, the record is devoid of similar additional factors to support the inference of recklessness. Any suggestion that a motor vehicle code violation, without more, is a form of "recklessness per se" is contrary to case law. See Commonwealth v. Bullick , 830 A.2d 988, 1003-04 (Pa.Super. 2003) (stating: "What is material is actual reckless driving or conduct...for it is this conduct which creates the peril in question"). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Order affirmed.
Judge McLaughlin joins this memorandum.
Judge Ransom did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 7/3/18
Image materials not available for display.