holding that where a police officer gave a visual and audible signal to defendant to pull over and defendant continued to drive, the evidence was sufficient for fleeing or attempting to elude
How later courts described this case
- holding that where a police officer gave a visual and audible signal to defendant to pull over and defendant continued to drive, the evidence was sufficient for fleeing or attempting to elude
- holding that “when ascertaining the meaning of a statute, if the language is clear, we give the words their plain and ordinary meaning”
- finding waiver where the appellant provided only a vague, undeveloped argument in support of her claim and did not cite to the record or relevant and controlling case law
- finding an issue waived where the appellant failed to develop any argument or cite to controlling case law
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRING STATEMENT BY
MOULTON, J.: I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction, and concur with its decision to affirm the judgment of sentence. However, I do not join the majority’s analysis of the statutory interpretation question briefed by the parties, as I believe it is unnecessary to a proper disposition of this case.
Appellant was charged with violating 75 Pa.C.S. § 3733 under two different theories — failing to bring her vehicle to a stop after being directed to stop; and fleeing after being directed to stop. While both theories were submitted to the jury,'the jury instructions delivered by the trial court required a finding that Appellant “was aware of the officer’s signal to stop and refused to do so,” N.T., 9/12/16, at 119. Accordingly, we need not consider the question whether the statute’s reference to “a pursuing police officer” modifies “otherwise flees,” because no one contends that it modifies “fails or refuses to ... stop.”