holding that - 23 - J-S40029-23 evidence of a victim’s intoxication is admissible where it is relevant to whether the decedent, who might have been intoxicated, jaywalked into the path of the defendant’s vehicle
How later courts described this case
- holding that - 23 - J-S40029-23 evidence of a victim’s intoxication is admissible where it is relevant to whether the decedent, who might have been intoxicated, jaywalked into the path of the defendant’s vehicle
- discussing causation in the criminal context
- accused has fundamental right to present relevant, defensive evidence
- "A conviction for vehicular homicide carries such a moral condemnation.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Commonwealth v. O'Neill, 396 Pa. Super. 520 (1990)
We find that Uhrinek, which sets forth a rule of admissibility, is inapplicable to issues of evidentiary sufficiency.
The opinion
LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent.
*543 Evidence regarding the intoxication of a victim should never be relevant when a defendant is charged with homicide by vehicle. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3732. It is the behavior of a victim which is of relevance to the element of causation, and the behavior of the victim in this case was fully presented to the jury. What motivates such behavior, however, is entirely irrelevant. I do not believe that a driver who kills a pedestrian, who may be intoxicated, while that driver operates his or her vehicle in a manner which violates the Motor Vehicle Code, is any less culpable than a driver who kills a pedestrian suddenly stricken by an epileptic seizure.
Accordingly, I would affirm the order of Superior Court, affirming the judgment of sentence.