Com. v. Thompson, M.

J-S54043-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MARCHAL D. THOMPSON :
:
Appellant : No. 105 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 18, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-22-SA-0000082-2018
BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and DUBOW, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 13, 2019
Appellant, Marchal D. Thompson, appeals from the Judgment of
Sentence entered in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas following his
conviction after a bench trial for Careless Driving (Unintentionally Causing the
Death of Another Person).1 He challenges the sufficiency of evidence
supporting his conviction. After careful review, we affirm.
We glean the following facts from the trial court’s Opinion and certified
record. On December 26, 2017, Appellant was operating a truck-tractor/semi-
trailer combination vehicle in the left lane of Interstate 81 in West Hanover
Township, when he collided with the rear of a passenger SUV vehicle traveling
in the same direction. The rear-end impact caused the SUV to be propelled
____________________________________________
1 75 Pa.C.S. § 3714(b).
J-S54043-19
forward and sideways, sideswiping a nearby commercial vehicle and a
passenger vehicle in the adjacent lane.
The SUV’s driver sustained a broken nose, and the victim, a passenger
in the SUV, suffered serious injuries, including multiple spinal fractures, and
was taken to Hershey Medical Center. Several days later, she passed away
while undergoing surgery to treat the injuries sustained in the accident.
At the scene of the accident, Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Jared
Troutman had spoken with all the vehicle operators involved and performed
an investigation. He concluded that Appellant’s truck-tractor/semi-trailer
combination vehicle was the sole cause of the accident.
Appellant was charged with the summary offense of Careless Driving
(Unintentionally Causing the Death of Another Person). On March 21, 2018,
Appellant pleaded guilty to that charged offense in municipal court. The court
sentenced Appellant to pay the statutory $500 fine and court costs. Appellant
appealed to the Court of Common Pleas.
The court held a de novo bench trial on December 18, 2018. The sole
witness at trial was Trooper Troutman who testified that Appellant told him at
the scene of the accident that, at the time of the accident, there was a glare
from the sun on his windshield that had inhibited his ability to see.
Trooper Troutman further testified regarding the report he completed
pertaining to the accident, in which he indicated that the environmental factor
of sun glare contributed to the accident. However, he testified that he also
specified in the report that the “prime” factor contributing to the accident was
-2-
J-S54043-19
driver action—that Appellant was driving too fast for the conditions. Trooper
Troutman could not recall the exact speed of Appellant’ s vehicle at the time
of the crash, but he testified that the type of severe vehicle damage to the
SUV observed at the accident scene strongly suggested that Appellant was
traveling at a high speed at the time of the collision. Trooper Troutman
testified that Appellant had not been driving his vehicle at an “assured clear
distance”2 from the SUV.
Trooper Troutman informed the court that New Jersey law enforcement
authorities conducted an inspection of the braking system in Appellant’s
tractor-trailer, which indicated a possible defect with one of the axles in
Appellant’s braking system.3 However, the parties did not introduce other
evidence relating to Appellant’s braking system.
At the conclusion of the trial, the court found Appellant guilty of Careless
Driving, and sentenced him to pay the statutory $500 fine and court costs.
Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion.
Appellant timely appealed. Both Appellant and the trial court complied
with Pa. R.A.P. 1925.
____________________________________________
2 The “assured clear distance ahead rule,” which is codified in the Vehicle
Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3361, requires a motorist to be capable of stopping within
the distance that he or she can clearly see. Davis v. Wright, 156 A.3d 1261,
1271 (Pa. Super. 2017).
3 Appellant resides in the state of New Jersey.
-3-
J-S54043-19
Appellant raises the following issue for our review: “Did the
Commonwealth fail to present sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction as to
careless driving?” Appellant’s Br. at 6. Specifically, he argues that the court
erroneously relied on the “assured clear distance” rule and failed to adequately
consider the exculpatory evidence—that glare was the number one
environmental factor associated with the accident and that there may have
been a defect with Appellant’s braking system.4 Id. at 12-14.
Our standard of review applicable to challenges to the sufficiency of
evidence is well settled. “Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, and taking all reasonable inferences
in favor of the Commonwealth, the reviewing court must determine whether
the evidence supports the fact-finder’s determination of all of the elements of
the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Hall, 830 A.2d
537, 541-42 (Pa. 2003). Further, a conviction may be sustained wholly on
circumstantial evidence, and the trier of fact—while passing on the credibility
of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence—is free to believe all, part, or
none of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1, 39-40 (Pa.
____________________________________________
4Appellant purports to challenge only the sufficiency of evidence against him.
However, Appellant’s argument that the court failed to adequately consider
certain evidence raises a weight of evidence challenge. To the extent that
Appellant asserts a challenge to the weight of evidence, this issue is waived
because he did not challenge the weight of evidence either orally or in writing
before sentencing or in a post-sentence motion. Commonwealth v. Bryant,
57 A.3d 191, 196-97 (Pa. Super. 2012); Pa.R.Crim.P. 607.
-4-
J-S54043-19
Super. 2014). In conducting this review, the appellate court may not weigh
the evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the fact-finder. Id.
The summary offense of Careless Driving is defined as “[a]ny person
who drives a vehicle in careless disregard for the safety of persons or
property[.]” 75 Pa.C.S. § 3714(a).5 “The mens rea requirement applicable to
[section] 3714, careless disregard, implies less than willful or wanton conduct
but more than ordinary negligence or the mere absence of care under the
circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Gezovich, 7 A.3d 300, 301 (Pa. Super.
2010) (citation and internal quotations omitted).
As noted above, the Commonwealth presented Trooper Troutman’s
testimony that the “prime” factor which caused the accident was driver
action—that Appellant was driving too fast for the conditions, conditions which
included glare. He opined that the severe damage to the SUV strongly
suggested that Appellant was traveling at a high speed at the time of the
collision and that Appellant was unable to stop within the distance that he
could clearly see. Trooper Troutman also testified that Appellant’s vehicle was
the sole cause of the accident and that the victim passed away while
undergoing surgery to treat the injuries she sustained in the accident.
Applying our standard of review, i.e., “viewing the evidence in the light most
____________________________________________
5A person who unintentionally causes the death of another person as a result
of Careless Driving shall be sentenced to pay a fine of $500. 75 Pa.C.S. §
3714(b).
-5-
J-S54043-19
favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, and taking all
reasonable inferences in favor of the Commonwealth,” we conclude that the
evidence supports the trial court's determination that the Commonwealth
proved all of the elements of Careless Driving (Unintentionally Causing the
Death of Another Person). Accordingly, Appellant’s sufficiency challenge to his
Careless Driving conviction is meritless.
Judgment of Sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/13/2019
-6-