# Commonwealth v. Brown

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · June 21, 1974 · 229 Pa. Super. 156

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541589

## Case

- **Full name:** Commonwealth v. Brown, Appellant
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 21, 1974
- **Citations:** 229 Pa. Super. 156; 323 A.2d 345; 1974 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2169
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Spaeth
- **Judges:** Spaeth, Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van Voort Spaeth
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541589

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Spaeth, J.:
It seems likely that the trial judge believed that the evidentiary effect to be given a breathalyzer reading of .10 or greater is to shift the burden of proof onto the defendant. Otherwise he would not have asked, “[D]oes [the defendant’s explanation] once more bring him back under the shield of the presumption of innocence?” On the other hand, he also said that the presumption of innocence “remains with the defendant throughout the trial of the case until the jury finds him guilty, finds he has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” This suggests the burden of proof does not shift. I would reverse, because if we find the charge lacking in clarity, the jury must have too.
Jacobs, J., joins in this opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541589. Public record. Not legal advice.