# Commonwealth v. Dellavecchia

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · December 31, 1998 · 725 A.2d 186

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9638828

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. James DELLAVECCHIA, Appellant
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 31, 1998
- **Citations:** 725 A.2d 186; 1998 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4651
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Schiller
- **Judges:** McEwen, President Judge, and Del Sole, Kelly, Popovich, Ford Elliott, Joyce, Musmanno, Orie Melvin and Schiller
- **Cited by:** 21 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/9638828

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding evidence insufficient to establish mens rea for aggravated assault when intoxicated defendant drove “at an excessive rate over congested city streets, weaving in and out of traffic, prior to crash,” and did apply brakes “in an effort to avoid impact.”
- concluding the evidence was insufficient to prove malice where Dellavecchia, with a blood-alcohol level of .033%, “drove at an excessive rate of speed,” and “cut off other cars[,]” but applied brakes before his car crashed “in an effort to avoid impact”

## Opinion text

SCHILLER, J.,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, this case is distinguishable from Commonwealth v. Comer, 552 Pa. 527 , 716 A.2d 593 (1998) and is akin to Commonwealth v. Scofield, 360 Pa.Super. 552 , 521 A.2d 40 (1987), appeal denied, 517 Pa. 593 , 535 A.2d 82 (1987), in that Appellant was aware of his reckless conduct. He was observed immediately before the crash to be travelling at an excessive rate of speed, “zoomfing] in and out through other cars.” Appellant applied his brakes before colliding with the vehicle in which the victims were sitting, leaving approximately 168 feet of skid marks. Moreover, after the collision, Appellant attempted to leave the scene but was prevented from doing so. Despite Appellant’s obviously intoxicated condition, I would find under these circumstances that he consciously disregarded the threat his dangerous conduct posed to human life and, therefore, that he possessed the requisite mens rea for aggravated assault.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9638828. Public record. Not legal advice.