determining that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to support an inference that the defendant drove his car while intoxicated where the defendant was found asleep in his car with the motor running, parked in front of a store that did not sell alcoholic beverages, and the defense stipulated that the defendant was intoxicated at the time the officer removed him from the car
How later courts described this case
- determining that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to support an inference that the defendant drove his car while intoxicated where the defendant was found asleep in his car with the motor running, parked in front of a store that did not sell alcoholic beverages, and the defense stipulated that the defendant was intoxicated at the time the officer removed him from the car
- stating, “a pre-trial habeas corpus motion is the proper means -3- J. S07040/18 for testing whether the Commonwealth has sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case.” (citation omitted)
- holding that the Commonwealth established a prima facie case of endangering the welfare of children
- holding that this Court in Keller improperly applied an abuse of discretion standard of review
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRING OPINION BY
LAZARUS, J.:
While I join the majority, I write separately to note my view that, in general, this Court should exercise caution in reversing a trial court’s decision regarding a pre-trial habeas cotpus matter. This caution is particularly warranted in cases, like the one at bar, where the facts present a close case such that reasonable minds could differ in the result.
"Whether the Commonwealth has presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for a charged crime is a question of law. Commonwealth v. Karetny, 583 Pa. 514 , 880 A.2d 505, 513 (2005). Therefore, an appellate court’s review of a pre-trial habeas corpus motion is plenary. Id. Although we are not bound by the legal determinations of the trial court, I remain mindful that the trial court will often be in an advantageous position at a pre-trial hearing to assess the evidence presented and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from it.
At the pre-trial stage, the evidentiary burden on the Commonwealth to defeat a habeas corpus motion is relatively modest. “To demonstrate that a prima facie case exists, the Commonwealth must produce evidence of every material element of the charged offense(s) as well as the defendant’s complicity therein.” Commonwealth v. Carroll, 936 A.2d 1148, 1152 (Pa.Super.2007). Regarding the burden of proof, this Court has noted:
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required at the habeas stage, but the Commonwealth’s evidence must be such that, if accepted as true, it would justify a trial court in submitting the case to a jury. Additionally, in the course of deciding a habeas petition, a court must view the evidence and its reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. Suspicion and conjecture, however, are unacceptable.
Id. (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Clearly, rational minds can disagree as to whether an inference is reasonable or merely speculative. In the balance, due weight should be given to the trial court’s evaluation of the factual circumstances.
From my review of the record, I agree with the majority that the Commonwealth has met the minimal burden imposed on it to overcome a pre-trial habeas corpus motion. Notwithstanding this,. I emphasize that the evidence of record, and the inferences derived therefrom, undoubtedly makes this case a close call.
It is with these views in mind that I concur with the majority.
Judge OTT and Judge JENKINS Join this Concurring Opinion.