Opinion

Commonwealth v. Stanley

  • 427 Pa. Super. 422
  • 629 A.2d 940
  • 1993 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1963
Court
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jun 17, 1993
Status
Published
Author
Hester
On the bench
Beck, Tamilia, Hester
Cited by
15 cases

stating that PBT results are inadmissible

How later courts described this case

  • stating that PBT results are inadmissible
  • “These observations [alcohol on the breath and -5- J-S36029-17 glassy, bloodshot eyes], combined with the officer's testimony that he saw appellant run a red light, clearly are sufficient to convict on the charge of DUI/incapable of safe driving.”
  • holding preliminary breath tests are not inadmissible at trial
  • “These observations [alcohol on the breath and glassy, bloodshot eyes], combined with the officer’s testimony that he saw appellant run a red light, clearly are sufficient to convict on the charge of DUI/incapable of safe driving.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

HESTER, Judge,

dissenting.

I must respectfully Dissent. I agree with the majority that “the trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to introduce testimony that the test was given and further erred in instructing the jury that the test could be considered, even for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause to arrest.” “Preliminary Breath Tests are to be treated like polygraph tests — their results are inadmissible and any deliberate attempt to reveal to the jury the fact that the test was given, even without letting the jury know the result, is error.”

I disagree with the majority, however, with their conclusion to the effect that the admission constitutes harmless error. Even though the jury heard testimony that the results of appellant’s breathalyzer test was .12%, they did not convict her of driving with a blood alcohol level of .10% or greater. The court advised the jury that the preliminary breath test was used by the police to assist them in determining whether or not they have probable cause to arrest and that the jury could consider the fact that the officer did use the test and administered it. Even though the jury was not told the results of the test, they were very aware of the results. The appellant was arrested. This had to impact upon the jury.

In my judgment, this was a serious error. I would grant a new trial.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.