Commonwealth v. Robinson

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Robinson

385 A.2d 567, 254 Pa. Super. 145, 1978 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2657

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 13, 1978

DocketNo. 240

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 385 A.2d 567 (Commonwealth v. Robinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Robinson, 385 A.2d 567, 254 Pa. Super. 145, 1978 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2657 (Pa. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted in a jury trial on the charges of failing to stop and reveal his identity at the scene of an [147]*147accident and operating a motor vehicle while his license was suspended. Appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for not less than IV2 years nor more than three years.

On March 23, 1976, a car, driven by the appellant, was involved in an accident with a truck. Since his car was blocking the highway, appellant moved it onto the shoulder. Appellant then approached the driver of the truck and requested that he forget about what happened. When the truck driver refused, appellant began to walk away, without identifying himself.

Section 1027(b) of the Motor Vehicle Code (75 P.S. § 1027(b)) requires a driver involved in an accident to give his name, address, and exhibit his operator’s license to the operator of any other vehicle involved. Appellant did not give the required information to the driver of the truck. He did not identify himself until sometime later when the state police arrived at the scene. Though this conduct violates § 1027(b) in the technical sense, a conviction is improper since the appellant did identify himself to the state police while still at the scene. No matter what his motives were, he should not be convicted for failure to stop at the scene of an accident.

The only argument appellant advances concerning the conviction for driving while under suspension involves the credibility of Commonwealth witness. This is a matter for the jury in its function as factfinder and will not be disturbed on appeal Commonwealth v. Thomas, 459 Pa. 371, 329 A.2d 277 (1974).

The conviction for driving while under suspension is affirmed. The conviction for failure to stop and reveal identity at the scene of an accident is reversed and this matter is remanded for resentencing.

PRICE and VAN der VOORT, JJ., dissent and would affirm on both counts. WATKINS, former President Judge, did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted in a jury trial on the charges of failing to stop and reveal his identity at the scene of an [147]*147accident and operating a motor vehicle while his license was suspended. Appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for not less than IV2 years nor more than three years.

On March 23, 1976, a car, driven by the appellant, was involved in an accident with a truck. Since his car was blocking the highway, appellant moved it onto the shoulder. Appellant then approached the driver of the truck and requested that he forget about what happened. When the truck driver refused, appellant began to walk away, without identifying himself.

Section 1027(b) of the Motor Vehicle Code (75 P.S. § 1027(b)) requires a driver involved in an accident to give his name, address, and exhibit his operator’s license to the operator of any other vehicle involved. Appellant did not give the required information to the driver of the truck. He did not identify himself until sometime later when the state police arrived at the scene. Though this conduct violates § 1027(b) in the technical sense, a conviction is improper since the appellant did identify himself to the state police while still at the scene. No matter what his motives were, he should not be convicted for failure to stop at the scene of an accident.

The only argument appellant advances concerning the conviction for driving while under suspension involves the credibility of Commonwealth witness. This is a matter for the jury in its function as factfinder and will not be disturbed on appeal Commonwealth v. Thomas, 459 Pa. 371, 329 A.2d 277 (1974).

The conviction for driving while under suspension is affirmed. The conviction for failure to stop and reveal identity at the scene of an accident is reversed and this matter is remanded for resentencing.

PRICE and VAN der VOORT, JJ., dissent and would affirm on both counts. WATKINS, former President Judge, did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

385 A.2d 567, 254 Pa. Super. 145, 1978 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-robinson-pasuperct-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack