J-S36005-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
THOMAS M. MCCHESNEY
Appellant No. 951 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 1, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-30-CR-0000378-2013
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., JENKINS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED JULY 21, 2015
Appellant, Thomas M. McChesney, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County after he
was convicted on charges of driving under the influence of alcohol.
McChesney argues that the trial court erred in finding that the breath testing
device used to measure his blood alcohol content (“BAC”) was an accepted
device. We disagree and affirm.
In the early evening of September 2, 2013, McChesney was pulled
over for driving through a stop sign without coming to a complete stop. The
Pennsylvania State Trooper who initiated the stop noticed indications of
alcohol intoxication, and administered a preliminary breath test as well as a ____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S36005-15
horizontal gaze nystagmus test. Based upon the results of these tests, the
Trooper placed McChesney under arrest and transported him to the barracks
for further testing.
At the barracks, the Trooper administered a breath test with a device
known as a “DataMaster DMT.” This test indicated that McChesney’s BAC
was 0.144. As a result, the Trooper filed charges of driving under the
influence of alcohol (high rate), driving under the influence of alcohol
(incapable of safe driving), and failure to stop at a stop sign.
McChesney filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the stop initiated
by the Trooper was invalid. After a hearing, the trial court denied the
motion.
The case proceeded to a non-jury trial. McChesney objected to, inter
alia, the admission of the DataMaster DMT results, arguing that the
Commonwealth had not supplied the necessary foundation. The trial court
overruled McChesney’s objection, and ultimately found McChesney guilty on
all counts. On the same date, the trial court sentenced McChesney to a term
of incarceration of 48 hours to six months. This timely appeal followed.
On appeal, McChesney raises a single issue for our review. McChesney
argues that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proof regarding
foundation for the admission of his BAC. Specifically, McChesney contends
that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence that the
DataMaster DMT was “approved equipment” for determining BAC.
-2- J-S36005-15
While McChesney styles this argument as a challenge to an evidentiary
ruling, we conclude that his arguments are more properly classified as a
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. We
address McChesney’s argument by first noting our standard of review. When
reviewing a non-jury trial, we review the record to ensure the findings of fact
are supported by competent evidence and that the trial court did not commit
an error of law. See Commonwealth v. Kaufman, 849 A.2d 1258, 1259
(Pa. Super. 2004).
When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the verdict winner, and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom. We must then determine whether the evidence was sufficient to permit the fact-finder to conclude that each and every element of the crimes charged was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Any question of doubt is for the fact-finder, unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances.
Id. (internal citations omitted).
Here, McChesney challenges his conviction for driving under the
influence of alcohol (high rate), 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(b). Section 3802(b)
provides that a person may not operate a motor vehicle if he or she is under
the influence of alcohol such that the person’s BAC is at least 0.10% but less
than 0.16% within two hours after the person has operated the vehicle. See
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(b). An operator’s BAC can be measured for purposes of
Section 3802 through the use of “approved equipment” operated by
“qualified persons.” 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1547(c). “Approved equipment” are
-3- J-S36005-15
devices certified through regulations promulgated by the Department of
Health and the Department of Transportation. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. §
1547(c)(1). Devices so certified are listed at least annually in the
Pennsylvania Bulletin. See, e.g., 45 Pa.B. 79.
During the direct examination of the Trooper who arrested McChesney,
the following relevant exchange occurred:
Q: How long of a trip is it from this place where you encountered Mr. McChesney to the Pennsylvania State Police barracks?
A: Approximately 25 to 30 minutes.
Q: Okay. And are you a certified breath test instrument operator?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: And let me ask you this: What type of instrument do they have available at the Pennsylvania State Police barracks?
A: The DataMaster, ma’am.
Q: And is that an instrument approved for – a breath testing device approved for determining blood alcohol content in Pennsylvania?
Q: And, I don’t know. I have the Pennsylvania Bulletin here.
[Prosecutor:] I don’t know if the Court wishes to take judicial notice, or if counsel wishes to see the copy of the Pennsylvania Bulletin regarding this particular device or –
THE COURT: Well, the officer has testified that it’s been accepted.
-4- J-S36005-15
[Prosecutor:] -- if there’s any challenge to the approval of this device.
[Def. Counsel:] Well, I think the evidence has to be that it is an approved device. I think the officer can determine that it’s approved.[1]
[Prosecutor:] All right. I have with me printed out a copy of the Pennsylvania Bulletin, Document No. 1442. I note on page 11 of 13 – and I don’t have an extra copy of this, but I can certainly show it to [defense counsel] and provide to the Court, that it lists the DataMaster DMT as approved.
THE COURT: Well, do you want to show [defense counsel?]
[Def. Counsel:] We would object, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Based on?
[Def. Counsel:] This is a list of approved devices as of January 4, 2014. This event occurred in 2013.
[Prosecutor:] If the Court wishes for me to take a recess, I can access the previous Pennsylvania Bulletin. I’d certainly do that if the Court wishes me to do so.
THE COURT: No. We’ll accept it. The objection is overruled.
N.T., Trial, 4/30/14, at 18-20.
____________________________________________
1 The Commonwealth notes in its brief that McChesney filed a motion for correction of the record with respect to this response in the transcript. The Commonwealth further observes that trial court ordered the court reporter to review the transcript and provide defense counsel an opportunity to listen to the recording. “The Commonwealth knows of no subsequent correction or modification to the record.” Appellee’s Brief, at 3, n.4. In any event, we find this statement by defense counsel to be of little significance, given defense counsel’s objection shortly thereafter.
-5- J-S36005-15
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S36005-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
THOMAS M. MCCHESNEY
Appellant No. 951 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 1, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-30-CR-0000378-2013
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., JENKINS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED JULY 21, 2015
Appellant, Thomas M. McChesney, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County after he
was convicted on charges of driving under the influence of alcohol.
McChesney argues that the trial court erred in finding that the breath testing
device used to measure his blood alcohol content (“BAC”) was an accepted
device. We disagree and affirm.
In the early evening of September 2, 2013, McChesney was pulled
over for driving through a stop sign without coming to a complete stop. The
Pennsylvania State Trooper who initiated the stop noticed indications of
alcohol intoxication, and administered a preliminary breath test as well as a ____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S36005-15
horizontal gaze nystagmus test. Based upon the results of these tests, the
Trooper placed McChesney under arrest and transported him to the barracks
for further testing.
At the barracks, the Trooper administered a breath test with a device
known as a “DataMaster DMT.” This test indicated that McChesney’s BAC
was 0.144. As a result, the Trooper filed charges of driving under the
influence of alcohol (high rate), driving under the influence of alcohol
(incapable of safe driving), and failure to stop at a stop sign.
McChesney filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the stop initiated
by the Trooper was invalid. After a hearing, the trial court denied the
motion.
The case proceeded to a non-jury trial. McChesney objected to, inter
alia, the admission of the DataMaster DMT results, arguing that the
Commonwealth had not supplied the necessary foundation. The trial court
overruled McChesney’s objection, and ultimately found McChesney guilty on
all counts. On the same date, the trial court sentenced McChesney to a term
of incarceration of 48 hours to six months. This timely appeal followed.
On appeal, McChesney raises a single issue for our review. McChesney
argues that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proof regarding
foundation for the admission of his BAC. Specifically, McChesney contends
that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence that the
DataMaster DMT was “approved equipment” for determining BAC.
-2- J-S36005-15
While McChesney styles this argument as a challenge to an evidentiary
ruling, we conclude that his arguments are more properly classified as a
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. We
address McChesney’s argument by first noting our standard of review. When
reviewing a non-jury trial, we review the record to ensure the findings of fact
are supported by competent evidence and that the trial court did not commit
an error of law. See Commonwealth v. Kaufman, 849 A.2d 1258, 1259
(Pa. Super. 2004).
When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the verdict winner, and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom. We must then determine whether the evidence was sufficient to permit the fact-finder to conclude that each and every element of the crimes charged was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Any question of doubt is for the fact-finder, unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances.
Id. (internal citations omitted).
Here, McChesney challenges his conviction for driving under the
influence of alcohol (high rate), 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(b). Section 3802(b)
provides that a person may not operate a motor vehicle if he or she is under
the influence of alcohol such that the person’s BAC is at least 0.10% but less
than 0.16% within two hours after the person has operated the vehicle. See
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(b). An operator’s BAC can be measured for purposes of
Section 3802 through the use of “approved equipment” operated by
“qualified persons.” 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1547(c). “Approved equipment” are
-3- J-S36005-15
devices certified through regulations promulgated by the Department of
Health and the Department of Transportation. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. §
1547(c)(1). Devices so certified are listed at least annually in the
Pennsylvania Bulletin. See, e.g., 45 Pa.B. 79.
During the direct examination of the Trooper who arrested McChesney,
the following relevant exchange occurred:
Q: How long of a trip is it from this place where you encountered Mr. McChesney to the Pennsylvania State Police barracks?
A: Approximately 25 to 30 minutes.
Q: Okay. And are you a certified breath test instrument operator?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: And let me ask you this: What type of instrument do they have available at the Pennsylvania State Police barracks?
A: The DataMaster, ma’am.
Q: And is that an instrument approved for – a breath testing device approved for determining blood alcohol content in Pennsylvania?
Q: And, I don’t know. I have the Pennsylvania Bulletin here.
[Prosecutor:] I don’t know if the Court wishes to take judicial notice, or if counsel wishes to see the copy of the Pennsylvania Bulletin regarding this particular device or –
THE COURT: Well, the officer has testified that it’s been accepted.
-4- J-S36005-15
[Prosecutor:] -- if there’s any challenge to the approval of this device.
[Def. Counsel:] Well, I think the evidence has to be that it is an approved device. I think the officer can determine that it’s approved.[1]
[Prosecutor:] All right. I have with me printed out a copy of the Pennsylvania Bulletin, Document No. 1442. I note on page 11 of 13 – and I don’t have an extra copy of this, but I can certainly show it to [defense counsel] and provide to the Court, that it lists the DataMaster DMT as approved.
THE COURT: Well, do you want to show [defense counsel?]
[Def. Counsel:] We would object, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Based on?
[Def. Counsel:] This is a list of approved devices as of January 4, 2014. This event occurred in 2013.
[Prosecutor:] If the Court wishes for me to take a recess, I can access the previous Pennsylvania Bulletin. I’d certainly do that if the Court wishes me to do so.
THE COURT: No. We’ll accept it. The objection is overruled.
N.T., Trial, 4/30/14, at 18-20.
____________________________________________
1 The Commonwealth notes in its brief that McChesney filed a motion for correction of the record with respect to this response in the transcript. The Commonwealth further observes that trial court ordered the court reporter to review the transcript and provide defense counsel an opportunity to listen to the recording. “The Commonwealth knows of no subsequent correction or modification to the record.” Appellee’s Brief, at 3, n.4. In any event, we find this statement by defense counsel to be of little significance, given defense counsel’s objection shortly thereafter.
-5- J-S36005-15
McChesney argues that the Commonwealth never requested the trial
court take judicial notice of the approved status of the DataMaster DMT
through the Pennsylvania Bulletin. We conclude that while the prosecutor
never explicitly requested the trial court take judicial notice, she did
reference judicial notice before presenting the Pennsylvania Bulletin to the
court. Furthermore, when the trial court overruled defense counsel’s
objection, it ruled that the relevant Pennsylvania Bulletin was being admitted
as evidence. Once the Bulletin was admitted into evidence, the trial court
was required to take judicial notice of it. See 45 Pa.C.S.A. § 506.
In the alternative, McChesney argues that since the Commonwealth
presented the list of approved devices published in 2014, it could not
support a finding that the DataMaster DMT was an approved device at the
time of his arrest. However, this Court has rejected a similar argument
under a previous version of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1547(c). See Commonwealth
v. Hess, 503 A.2d 448, 449 (Pa. Super. 1986) (conditions for admissibility
of BAC contained in 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1547(c) must be satisfied at time of trial,
not at the time of testing).2 We thus conclude that McChesney’s challenge
on appeal merits no relief.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judge Strassburger joins the memorandum. ____________________________________________
2 We note that in any event, the DataMaster DMT was an approved device in 2013. See 43 Pa.B. 72.
-6- J-S36005-15
Judge Jenkins concurs in the result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 7/21/2015
-7-