Commonwealth v. Starry, M.

204 A.3d 369

Opinion

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of March, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:

(1) Whether the rationale and holding in Commonwealth v. Segida, 604 Pa. 103 , 985 A.2d 871 (2009), applies to a charge of driving under the influence brought pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(c), which has a statutory requirement that the defendant have an alcohol concentration in his or her blood or breath of.16% or greater within two hours after driving, operating or being in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle.

(2) Whether the Superior Court erred by finding that the Commonwealth presented prima facie evidence that Petitioner's blood alcohol concentration was .16% or higher within two hours after she drove, operated or was in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle.

(3) Whether the Superior Court erred in finding that the Commonwealth presented prima facie evidence to satisfy 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(g)(1), which requires the Commonwealth to show "good cause explaining why the chemical test sample could not be obtained within two hours."