# Commonwealth v. McGinnis

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · September 25, 1986 · 511 Pa. 520

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754549

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Michael William McGINNIS, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 25, 1986
- **Citations:** 511 Pa. 520; 515 A.2d 847; 1986 Pa. LEXIS 854
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hutchinson
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Papadakos, Hutchinson
- **Cited by:** 26 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/9754549

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that trial court erred by not granting motion for acquittal of driving under the influence charge due to improper admission of breathalyzer test
- holding results of breathalyzer test inadmissible when not in compliance with Section 1547
- reversing judgment of sentence because the only evidence of intoxication was the inadmissible result of a breath-test administered on a modified, unapproved device

## Opinion text

HUTCHINSON, Justice,
Dissenting.
I dissent. I do not believe that a directed verdict is warranted here. Sufficiency of the evidence should be judged on all of the evidence presented at trial, even evidence improperly admitted. Commonwealth v. Cohen, 489 *528 Pa. 167 , 413 A.2d 1066 (1980). Applying this standard, the evidence on this record is sufficient. The Commonwealth should be free to reprosecute appellant. It may try the case differently or introduce evidence of drunkenness not presented at the initial trial. The Commonwealth may even be able to introduce the breathalyzer results by showing that the modification was peripheral to the device’s operation. Therefore, I would vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for a new trial.
NIX, C.J., joins in this Dissenting Opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754549. Public record. Not legal advice.