Com. v. Stine, E. , 2016 Pa. Super. 154 ( 2016 )

J-A09034-16
2016 PA Super 154COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ERIC JOHN STINE,
Appellant No. 1124 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 5, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-14-CR-0000308-2013
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., JENKINS, J., and PLATT, J.*
OPINION BY PLATT, J.:
FILED JULY 18, 2016
Appellant, Eric John Stine, appeals from the judgment of sentence
imposed on February 5, 2015, following his non-jury conviction of three
counts of driving under the influence (DUI).1 On appeal, Appellant
challenges the admissibility of the amphetamine test results. For the
reasons discussed below, we affirm.
We take the underlying facts and procedural history in this matter
from the December 3, 2014 notes of testimony and our independent review
of the certified record.
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3802(d)(1)(i), (ii) and (iii).
J-A09034-16
On September 14, 2012, Bellefonte Borough Police Officer Andy Berry
noticed that Appellant’s vehicle had an expired registration. (See N.T. Trial,
12/03/14, at 5-6). When making contact with Appellant, Officer Berry
observed that his pupils were dilated, he kept clenching his jaw, and there
was a brown substance in his nostril. (See id. 7). An experienced police
officer with special training in the detection of impaired drivers, Officer Berry
believed that Appellant was driving under the influence. (See id. at 5-7).
Because Appellant performed poorly on field sobriety tests, Officer
Berry transported him for an evaluation by a drug recognition expert, State
College Police Officer Robert Keen. (See id. at 8-9). After performing an
evaluation of Appellant, Officer Keen believed that Appellant was under the
influence of narcotics and recommended that Officer Berry transport him to
Mount Nittany Medical Center for a blood draw. (See id. at 28-29). The
results of the blood test showed that Appellant was under the influence of
various narcotics. (See id. at 44-46).
On April 30, 2013, Appellant filed a motion to suppress claiming that
the police lacked reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop and that any
statements to the police were made in violation of the United States
Supreme Court ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). (See
Appellant’s Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion, 4/30/13, at 2-4). The trial court
denied the motion on June 25, 2013.
-2-
J-A09034-16
At trial, Appellant objected to any testimony about, and the admission
of, amphetamine testing and its results. (See N.T. Trial, 12/03/14, at 42-
43). The trial court overruled the objection. (See id. at 44). Following the
bench trial, on December 3, 2014, the trial court found Appellant guilty of
driving under the influence. On February 5, 2015, the trial court sentenced
Appellant to a term of incarceration of not less than seventy-two hours nor
more than six months. Appellant filed a post-sentence motion that same
day. The trial court denied the motion on June 2, 2015. The instant, timely
appeal followed. On July 8, 2015, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b). Appellant filed a timely Rule 1925(b) statement on July 16, 2015.
The trial court issued an opinion on August 17, 2015. See Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a).
On appeal, Appellant raises the following question for our review:
1. [Was it] legal error for the [t]rial [c]ourt to admit the
amphetamine test results as the testing for them was done
using liquid chromatography and liquid chromatography
[tests] are not statutorily approved[?]
(Appellant’s Brief, at 1).
On appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting
the results of the liquid chromatography test. (See id. at 3). Specifically,
Appellant maintains that this test is not one that is approved for use in the
Pennsylvania Code. (See id. at 5-6). We disagree.
-3-
J-A09034-16
Our standard of review is well-settled; we may only reverse a trial
court’s ruling regarding the admissibility of evidence if the trial court abused
its discretion. See Commonwealth v. O’Brien, 836 A.2d 966, 968 (Pa.
Super. 2003), appeal denied, 845 A.2d 817 (Pa. 2004). However, we note
that interpreting the meaning of a statute raises a pure question of law,
therefore our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is
plenary. See Commonwealth v. Burwell, 58 A.3d 790, 793 (Pa. Super.
2012), appeal denied, 69 A.3d 242 (Pa. 2013). Further, we acknowledge:
Our task is guided by the sound and settled principles set
forth in the Statutory Construction Act, including the primary
maxim that the object of statutory construction is to ascertain
and effectuate legislative intent. 1 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 1921(a). In
pursuing that end, we are mindful that “[w]hen the words of a
statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is
not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” 1
Pa.C.S.[A]. § 1921(b). Indeed, “[a]s a general rule, the best
indication of legislative intent is the plain language of a statute.”
In reading the plain language, “[w]ords and phrases shall be
construed according to rules of grammar and according to their
common and approved usage,” while any words or phrases that
have acquired a “peculiar and appropriate meaning” must be
construed according to that meaning. 1 Pa.C.S.[A. §] 1903(a).
However, when interpreting non-explicit statutory text,
legislative intent may be gleaned from a variety of factors,
including, inter alia: the occasion and necessity for the statute;
the mischief to be remedied; the object to be attained; the
consequences of a particular interpretation; and the
contemporaneous legislative history. 1 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 1921(c).
Moreover, while statutes generally should be construed liberally,
penal statutes are always to be construed strictly, 1 Pa.C.S.[A] §
1928(b)(1), and any ambiguity in a penal statute should be
interpreted in favor of the defendant.
Notwithstanding the primacy of the plain meaning doctrine
as best representative of legislative intent, the rules of
construction offer several important qualifying precepts. For
-4-
J-A09034-16
instance, the Statutory Construction Act also states that, in
ascertaining legislative intent, courts may apply, inter alia, the
following presumptions: that the legislature does not intend a
result that is absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonable;
and that the legislature intends the entire statute to be effective
and certain. 1 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 1922(1),(2). Most importantly, the
General Assembly has made clear that the rules of construction
are not to be applied where they would result in a construction
inconsistent with the manifest intent of the General Assembly. 1
Pa.C.S.[A.] § 1901.
Commonwealth v. Wilson, 111 A.3d 747, 751 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal
denied, 128 A.3d 221 (Pa. 2015) (case citation omitted).
Here, Appellant argues that 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1547(c)2 governs this case.
(See Appellant’s Brief, at 3). He maintains that 75 Pa.C.S.A. §
1547(c)(2)(i)3 has three requirements with respect to admissibility of
laboratory tests for drug and alcohol:
____________________________________________
2
Section 1547(c) provides that:
(c) Test results admissible in evidence.—In any summary
proceeding or criminal proceeding in which the defendant is
charged with a violation of section 3802 or any other violation of
this title arising out of the same action, the amount of alcohol or
controlled substance in the defendant’s blood, as shown by
chemical testing of the person’s breath, blood or urine, which
tests were conducted by qualified persons using approved
equipment, shall be admissible in evidence.
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1547(c).
3
Subsection (c)(2)(i) provides that:
(2)(i) Chemical tests of blood or urine, if conducted by a facility
located in this Commonwealth, shall be performed by a clinical
laboratory licensed and approved by the Department of Health
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-5-
J-A09034-16
1. [The test must be p]erformed in a lab licensed and approved
by the Dept. of Health;
2. The test must be done using a procedure prescribed by the
Dept. of Health;
3. The test must be done on equipment prescribed by the Dept.
of Health.
(Appellant’s Brief, at 4). Appellant concedes that the Department of Health
approved the laboratory used in the instant matter for drug and alcohol
testing, but claims that the test does not meet the second and third criteria.
(See id. at 4-5). Specifically, he argues that the test used must be on the
list of tests approved in the Pennsylvania Code and that liquid
chromatography is not on the approved list. (See id. at 5-6). We disagree.
The sections of the Code relied upon by Appellant are found at 28 Pa.
Code 5.101-5.104. Section 5.101 states:
The purpose of §§ 5.101—5.104 (relating to equipment to
determine blood alcohol content under the Vehicle Code and the
Fish and Boat Code) is to satisfy the requirements of 75
Pa.C.S.[A.] § 1547(c) and (k) and 30 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 5125(c) and
(k) (relating to chemical testing to determine amount of alcohol
or controlled substance).
28 Pa. Code § 5.101. Section 5.103 states in pertinent part:
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
for this purpose using procedures and equipment prescribed by
the Department of Health or by a Pennsylvania State Police
criminal laboratory. For purposes of blood and urine testing,
qualified person means an individual who is authorized to
perform those chemical tests under the act of September 26,
1951 (P.L. 1539, No. 389), known as The Clinical Laboratory Act.
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1547(c)(2)(i) (footnote omitted).
-6-
J-A09034-16
Blood tests for blood alcohol content.
Equipment used for blood analysis to determine the amount
of alcohol in a person’s blood which performs the analysis by
means of gas chromatography, enzymatic procedures, distillation
procedures or diffusion procedures is approved by the
Department . . .
28 Pa. Code § 5103 (emphasis added). The language in this section of the
Code is explicit, therefore, we look to the plain meaning of language, see
Wilson, supra at 751.
Here, the Code specifically and clearly states this is the equipment
and/or tests a laboratory may use to test for blood alcohol content. See 28
Pa. Code § 5103. There is nothing in the plain language of this section of
the Code with respect to controlled substance testing and nothing to suggest
that the General Assembly intended this list to apply to controlled substance
testing. Had the drafters wanted to include controlled substance testing in
the Section, they could have added the phrases “controlled substance” or
the “amount of alcohol or a controlled substance in a person’s blood,” as
they did in Section 5.101. They chose not to do so and we have no basis for
reading such phrases into the explicit language of the Code. See Wilson,
supra at 751.
Moreover, as noted above, Appellant concedes that the Department of
Health approved the laboratory in question. (See Appellant’s Brief, at 4-5).
The Pennsylvania Code specifically states that in order to receive approval
from the Department of Health, a laboratory must provide, in pertinent part:
-7-
J-A09034-16
(4) A list of the major laboratory equipment to be utilized,
including the manufacturer's name and model number, and other
pertinent specifications as may be required on the application
form.
(5) The tests to be performed in the clinical laboratory.
(6) The internal and external quality control systems to be
employed in the clinical laboratory.
28 Pa. Code § 5.11(c)(4), (5) and (6). Thus, by granting the laboratory its
permit, the Department of Health knew that it would be using a liquid
chromatograph and knew what tests it would be performing and approved
its use. Accordingly, we conclude that Section 5.103, particularly when read
in combination with Section 5.11(c), does not bar this equipment for
controlled substance testing.
In any event, Appellant has not provided any legal support for his
interpretation of Section 5.103, which flies in the face of the explicit
language of the Code. In addition, albeit on different grounds, this Court
has upheld a driving under the influence conviction based upon the evidence
resulting from a liquid chromatography test. See Commonwealth v.
Weaver, 76 A.3d 562, 570-71 (Pa. Super. 2013), aff’d per curiam, 105 A.3d
656 (Pa. 2014). In sum, Appellant has not shown that his reading of Section
5.103 is correct. Thus, the trial court neither made an error of law nor
abused its discretion in admitting the liquid chromatography tests results.
See O’Brien, supra at 968.
-8-
J-A09034-16
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we affirm the judgment
of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/18/2016
-9-