COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DANIEL PATRICK CAULEY

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DANIEL PATRICK CAULEY No. 270 WDA 2010 2010 PA Super 217 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 11/29/2010
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered January 26, 2010 In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal No(s).: CP-65-CR-0000856-2009; CR-0000014-09
Before: BOWES, ALLEN, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: FITZGERALD, J.
Appellant, Daniel Patrick Cauley, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas, following his conviction for driving under the influence, highest rate of alcohol. Appellant contends on appeal that the police did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct field sobriety tests. We hold that police officers may conduct sobriety tests after a citizen effectuates an encounter when the officer observes evidence of alcohol intoxication as a result of the encounter, and the officer observed the citizen driving a vehicle immediately prior to the encounter. Accordingly, we affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JENNIFER ANN BARTON-MARTIN

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JENNIFER ANN BARTON-MARTIN No. 1080 MDA 2009 2010 PA Super 163 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/8/2010
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered January 26, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-67-CR-0000809-2008.
Before: MUSMANNO, LAZARUS and OLSON, JJ.
Opinion by: OLSON, J.
Appellant, Jennifer Ann Barton-Martin, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on January 26, 2009, as made final when Appellant’s post-sentence motions were deemed denied by operation of law, sentencing her for convictions on two counts of driving under the influence, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1) (general impairment) and 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(c) (highest rate). Among other claims raised on appeal, Appellant challenges the admission of blood-alcohol test results offered to establish her guilt under § 3802(c) based on the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009). In Melendez-Diaz, the Court held that lab reports admitted to establish a defendant’s guilt constituted testimonial statements covered by the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution and that such reports were inadmissible unless the defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine the lab analyst at trial.

-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here