75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3802

Section 3802(d)(2) permits a drug-impaired-driving conviction based on circumstantial evidence of drug use and impaired ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Jackson, E. · filed 2016-10-28(d)(2)

After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the decision of the trial court, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s decision. See Trial Ct. Op. at 3-5 (summarizing evidence as follows: (1) police smelled odor of fresh, burnt marijuana from passenger side of Appellant’s vehicle although passenger window was closed; (2) Appellant spoke slowly and sluggishly and had bloodshot eyes; and (3) after the police signaled him to pull over, Appellant slowly drove his vehicle and stopped in between the travel lane and the shoulder).

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a DUI conviction when driving behavior, failed field sobriety tests, demeanor, and appearance show that alcohol made the driver incapable of safe driving.

Com. v. Kohli, H. · filed 2017-01-10(a)(1)

We adopt the trial court’s sound reasoning for the purpose of this appeal. See id. ... Defendant's actions and behavior, including manner of driving and failing to pass ... field sobriety tests; his demeanor at the scene; his unsolicited comments and his ... physical appearance establish that he was under the influence and incapable of safe ... driving.

Section 3802(d)(4) prohibits driving under the influence of a solvent or noxious substance in violation of section 7303; the substance, driving, and impairment may be proved through physical evidence, testimony, and the driver’s admissions.

Com. v. Agnew, R. · filed 2017-06-02(d)(4)

Commonwealth Exhibit 1 when viewed in connection with the testimonial evidence and Appellant’s own admissions provided the jury with sufficient evidence to convict Appellant of DUI and Illegal Use of Solvents or Noxious Substances.

Section 3802(a)(1) prohibits driving after drinking enough alcohol to make the driver incapable of driving safely, and impairment may be proved through the driver’s conduct and an officer’s observations.

Com. v. Zamperini, B. · filed 2017-07-28(a)(1)

In the light of this evidence, we agree with the trial court that the evidence was sufficient to show Appellant was operating her vehicle and had “imbibe[d] a sufficient amount of alcohol such that [she was] rendered incapable of safely driving” under section 3802(a)(1).

Section 3802(a)(1) permits proof of general impairment through a driver’s manner of driving and observable signs of alcohol use.

Com. v. Phelan, K. · filed 2017-08-07(a)(1)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we agree with the trial court that the evidence was sufficient to prove a violation of Subsection 3802(a)(1).

Section 3802(a)(1) prohibits driving after drinking enough alcohol to become incapable of safe driving; evidence of impairment, failed field sobriety tests, and a crash can support a conviction.

Com. v. Muniz, E. · filed 2017-09-19(a)(1)

Under all these circumstances, as well as after learning about [Muniz]’s prior driver’s license suspension, we find that [Muniz] is guilty of Count 1, driving under the influence of alcohol after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol that he was rendered incapable of safe driving; Count 3, driving while his operating license was suspended and DUI related; and Count 4, driving vehicle at a safe speed. ... We agree.

Section 3802(d)(2) can be proved through officers’ observations showing that a drug impaired the driver’s ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Boccalupo, J. · filed 2017-09-25(d)(2)

Assuming the truth of the officers’ testimony, as we must, see Gause, 164 A.3d at 540, the evidence establishes that Appellant was under the influence of a drug that impaired his ability to drive.

Section 3802(a)(1) requires proof that a person drove, operated, or actually controlled a vehicle while impaired by alcohol to a degree that made safe driving impossible.

Com. v. Garcia, J. · filed 2017-11-13(a)(1)

From the evidence recounted above, it is reasonable to have concluded that the Defendant was driving, operating, or in actual physical control of the movement of his Ford F150 pick-up truck while under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered him incapable of safe driving.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits the factfinder to conclude that alcohol caused impairment based on the officer’s testimony and other evidence, even when a breathalyzer detects no alcohol.

Com. v. Miklosko, M. · filed 2017-11-17(a)(1)

The trial court was free to consider that testimony along with the other evidence in the case and to conclude that Appellant was impaired and that his consumption of alcohol caused the impairment.

Eyewitness testimony of erratic driving, together with officers’ observations of the driver, can establish impairment under subsection (d)(2) beyond a reasonable doubt.

Com. v. Harvey, J. · filed 2017-12-08(d)(2)

The testimony provided by Ms. Monk, and Officers Doyle and Glenn was sufficient to prove the elements of DUI-controlled substance beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 3802(a)(1) requires proof of alcohol impairment while driving; recent driving and signs of intoxication can support that finding.

Com. v. Glass, R. · filed 2017-12-21(a)(1)

We conclude that the trial court’s April 4, 2017 opinion accurately addresses Appellant’s arguments, and we affirm on the basis of that opinion. In particular, we note that the trial court, sitting as finder of fact, found Appellant’s testimony not credible. Furthermore, police officers arrived on the scene within minutes of McMahan’s call, and the trial court credited their testimony that Appellant was already intoxicated and that he smelled of metabolized alcohol.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a DUI conviction based on evidence that alcohol rendered a driver incapable of safe driving, even without HGN test results.

Com. v. Collier, J. · filed 2018-01-04(a)(1)

Based on the aforementioned, even absent the evidence concerning the HGN test results, the Commonwealth’s evidence overwhelmingly showed that Appellant was under the influence of alcohol to a degree that rendered him incapable of safe driving at the time Trooper Laurendeau stopped his vehicle.

Section 3802(d)(2) permits a drug-impaired driving conviction based on circumstantial evidence, including an officer’s observations and expert testimony, without blood test evidence.

Com. v. Caldwell, C. · filed 2018-02-15(d)(2)

In this case, the trial court found Appellant guilty of DUI−Unsafe Driving/Controlled Substance, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2), which provides, in pertinent part, that: ... (2) The individual is under the influence of a drug or combination of drugs to a degree which impairs the individual’s ability to safely drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle. ... Viewing all the evidence in the totality of circumstances and in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, together with all ... reasonable inferences, we have no difficulty in concluding that there was more than sufficient evidence to convict Appellant.

Section 3802(d)(2) permits proof of drug-impaired driving through an officer’s observations and field sobriety tests.

Com. v. Boone, L. · filed 2018-03-14(d)(2)

In the instant case, Trooper Flemming testified that he smelled marijuana emanating from Appellant’s vehicle and Appellant was slow and sluggish responding to things. ... Furthermore, during both field sobriety tests, Appellant demonstrated cues that indicated possible intoxication. ... Upon review, we conclude that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, was sufficient to prove that Appellant was under the influence of a drug such that he was incapable of ... safely driving.

Section 3802(d)(2) prohibits driving while under the influence of a drug or combination of drugs to a degree that impairs the ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Hohenwarter, S. · filed 2018-03-15(d)(2)

Upon review, we conclude that the evidence presented at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, was sufficient to establish that Hohenwarter “was under the influence of a drug or combination of drugs to a degree that [her] ability to drive [was] impaired.” Tarrach, 42 A.3d at 345.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits alcohol impairment to be proved through circumstantial evidence of unsafe driving and signs of impairment.

Com. v. Blackie, G. · filed 2018-05-01(a)(1)

While Appellant testified to consuming only half of a beer, the other witness testimony – of Appellant acting strangely, smelling of alcohol, delaying his production of driver documentation, failing sobriety tests, and refusing to submit to a blood test – support the trial court’s finding of impairment as required under Section 3802(a)(1).

Section 3802(a)(1) allows impairment to be proved through eyewitness observations of the driver’s behavior and driving, corroborated by officers’ observations shortly afterward.

Com. v. Camilleri, J. · filed 2018-06-07(a)(1)

The testimony from Mr. Urban, found credible by the trial court, established that Appellant was impaired, as manifested by his slurring, wavering gait, and apparent unawareness of his fallen footwear prior to walking unsteadily around his vehicle to look at the damage to the other car.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits credited officer testimony to establish that alcohol substantially impaired a driver’s ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Jeffers, R. · filed 2018-06-18(a)(1)

The issue is whether the officers’ testimony alone, if credited by the fact-finder, was sufficient to satisfy the Commonwealth’s burden of proving substantial impairment. ... Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as we must, we find the evidence legally sufficient to support the conviction.

Section 3802(a)(1) requires proof that the accused drove, operated, or actually controlled a vehicle while alcohol made safe operation impossible.

Com. v. Muinde, N. · filed 2018-06-26(a)(1)

To support a conviction under Section 3802(a)(1), the Commonwealth must prove “the accused was driving, operating, or in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle during the time when he or she was rendered ... incapable of safely doing so due to the consumption of alcohol.” ... When we look at the whole record, the evidence was plainly sufficient.

Section 3802(a)(1) allows a general impairment conviction when evidence shows that alcohol rendered a person incapable of safely driving.

Com. v. Kerick, T. · filed 2018-07-23(a)(1)

A person is guilty of DUI-General Impairment if he “drive[s], operate[s,] or [is] in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol such that [he] is rendered incapable of safely [doing so].” 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1). ... We have thoroughly reviewed the Certified Record, the parties’ Briefs, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned trial court Opinion, and conclude that the trial court did not err as a matter of law in finding that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant’s conviction.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a conviction based on evidence that alcohol made a person unable to drive safely, even without evidence of erratic driving.

Com. v. Weller, R. · filed 2018-09-19(a)(1)

Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the ... Commonwealth as the verdict winner, Teems, supra, we deem this evidence sufficient to sustain Appellant’s conviction under Subsection 3802(a)(1).

Section 3802(a)(2) requires proof that a person drove, operated, or controlled a vehicle and had a BAC of at least 0.08% within two hours.

Com. v. Krause, G., Jr. · filed 2018-12-03(a)(2)

This evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient to prove that Krause was in control of the Durango at a time when his BAC exceeded the statutory limit.

Section 3802(d)(2) and (3) DUI convictions may be supported by direct and circumstantial evidence of impairment, including the driver’s appearance, speech, field sobriety performance, and evidence of alcohol and marijuana.

Commonwealth v. Copenhaver · filed 2018-12-07(d)(2), (d)(3)

Accordingly, we adopt that portion of Judge Campbell’s opinion as our own. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/20/17, at 6-10 (finding credible the Commonwealth’s direct and circumstantial evidence that Appellant operated a vehicle with red eyes and slurred speech; that odors of alcohol and marijuana emanated from Appellant’s vehicle; that suspected marijuana and drug paraphernalia were discovered inside Appellant’s vehicle; and Appellant exhibited signs of impairment during the course of standardized field sobriety tests, leading the trial court to conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the “necessary elements of the offenses, and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed the offenses”).

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a finding of general impairment from evidence of alcohol odor, physical signs of intoxication, and an admission to recent drinking.

Com. v. Riggan, S. · filed 2018-12-20(a)(1)

We agree with the trial court that Appellant’s emitting an overwhelming odor of alcohol, physical signs of intoxication, and admission to drinking three drinks 20 minutes prior to the accident are sufficient to support the inference that Appellant was incapable of safely driving due to alcohol consumption.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a general impairment conviction when evidence of slurred speech, glassy eyes, alcohol odor, and driving off the road establishes an inability to drive safely.

Com. v. Martin, K. · filed 2019-01-10(a)(1)

Most of the factors that our Supreme Court has identified as evidencing intoxication to a level where an individual is incapable of safe driving are present. Hence, even assuming arguendo that Appellant’s unsteady walk did not indicate that she was intoxicated to the point of being unable to operate a vehicle safety, there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find Appellant guilty of DUI-general impairment.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a general impairment conviction based on an officer’s observations of erratic driving and signs of impairment, together with the driver’s admissions of drinking and marijuana use.

Com. v. Heath, D. · filed 2019-02-06(a)(1)

In view of Giron, we find the evidence herein sufficient to support the conviction for DUI – general impairment.

Section 3802(a)(1) allows a factfinder to infer that alcohol made a driver incapable of safe driving from a crash, an admission of drinking, and observed signs of intoxication.

Com. v. Green, M. · filed 2019-02-19(a)(1)

She admitted to Trooper Schonbachler that she had been drinking, and he observed several signs of intoxication: her eyes were bloodshot, she smelled of alcohol, and her speech was slurred. These are the telltale signs of intoxication. Taken together, these circumstances would permit a factfinder to conclude that Appellant had violated the DUI statute.

Section 3802(a)(1) requires proof that alcohol impaired a person’s ability to drive safely; driving observations, signs of intoxication, and field sobriety tests can establish that impairment.

Com. v. Taylor, S., Jr. · filed 2019-05-08(a)(1)

Based on the foregoing, we find that the Commonwealth established the elements of impairment and inability to drive safely, and appellant’s contention that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for ... DUI under Section 3802(a)(1) must fail.

Section 3802(a)(1) requires proof that the defendant operated a vehicle while alcohol rendered them incapable of driving safely.

Com. v. Mazzella, A. · filed 2019-05-13(a)(1)

Therefore, it was reasonable for the court to conclude that Appellant drove his motorcycle at a time when he was incapable of driving safely due to ingestion of alcohol.

Section 3802(a)(1) and (b) permit circumstantial evidence to establish impairment at the time of driving and that the driver’s blood alcohol concentration was at least 0.10% but less than 0.16% within two hours of driving.

Com. v. Shrecengost, D. · filed 2019-06-18(a)(1), (b)

Accordingly, we conclude that the Commonwealth proved that Appellant operated his car at a time he was rendered incapable of safe driving. ... In this case, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, we deem the circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove that Appellant’s blood was drawn within two hours of his driving.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a finding that alcohol made a driver incapable of safely driving even when there is also evidence of marijuana use.

Com. v. Eid, K. · filed 2019-07-11(a)(1)

While Appellant cites to cases that reiterate that Section 3802 prohibits driving when the vehicle operator is incapable of safely operating an automobile because of drinking alcohol, he does not cite to any case that holds that evidence that a defendant may have been under the influence of marijuana precludes a finding that a defendant was incapable of safely operating a vehicle because of alcohol consumption under Section 3802(a). ... Appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of evidence supporting his DUI convictions lacks merit, and he is, thus, not entitled to relief.

Section 3802(d)(2) permits a conviction based on evidence that drug use impaired the defendant’s ability to drive safely, including erratic driving, physical signs of impairment, and admissions of drug use.

Com. v. Marotto, F. · filed 2019-08-12(d)(2)

In viewing all of the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the trial court, as fact -finder, to conclude the Commonwealth met its burden of proof of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt the elements to support a conviction of driving under the influence.

Subsection (d)(2) requires proof that a drug or combination of drugs impaired the defendant’s ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Panick, S. · filed 2019-11-08(d)(2)

We conclude the testimony of both Trooper Norman and Ms. Harding supports the trial court’s determination that Panick was under the influence of controlled substances to such a degree that she was incapable of driving safely or being in actual physical control of her vehicle.

Circumstantial evidence that the defendant drove while intoxicated, together with a blood test showing a 0.187% blood alcohol concentration, was sufficient to support convictions under subsections (a)(1) and (c).

Com. v. Sliker, C. · filed 2019-12-10(a)(1), (c)

Therefore, we conclude, based on the foregoing evidence, that the trial court properly found it was sufficient to support a conviction of DUI-General Impairment and Highest Rate.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a general impairment conviction based on evidence of unsafe driving, signs of intoxication, and a high blood alcohol level.

Com. v. MacCartney, S. · filed 2019-12-12(a)(1)

We conclude that the evidence, construed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient to sustain Appellant’s conviction under subsection 3802(a)(1). ... Trooper Kara testified that, while interviewing Appellant, her speech was “slow and sluggish,” that he detected a “strong smell of alcohol,” and upon searching her vehicle, he found a can of Miller Lite beer that had “some liquid still in it.” ... As such, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to convict Appellant under subsection 3802(a)(1).

Section 3802(b) requires proof that a driver’s blood or breath alcohol concentration was at least 0.10% but less than 0.16% within two hours of driving.

Com. v. Murray, E. · filed 2019-12-30(b)

Thus, the evidence sufficiently established that Murray’s BAC was within .10 and .16, as required for conviction under 75 ... Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(b).

Section 3802(a) requires proof that alcohol rendered the driver incapable of safely operating a vehicle; unsafe driving and failed sobriety tests can establish that impairment.

Com. v. Judy, D. · filed 2020-01-06(a)

At trial, the Commonwealth presented evidence that Judy crossed the center line on three occasions and turned onto a closed entranceway. Judy failed field sobriety tests given by Trooper Reith and recorded a 0.14% BAC later that evening. Thus, the Commonwealth offered sufficient evidence to show that Judy could not safely operate a vehicle after imbibing alcohol.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a DUI conviction when circumstantial evidence shows that a person drove or controlled a vehicle after drinking enough alcohol to make safe driving impossible.

Com. v. Haldarov, S. · filed 2020-01-15(a)(1)

When reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we conclude the trial court did not err in finding there was sufficient evidence that Appellant drove, operated, or was in actual physical control of his vehicle after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol, which rendered Appellant incapable of safely driving, operating or being in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.

Officer testimony about the driver’s damaged vehicle, bloodshot eyes, odor of alcohol, unsteady gait, and conduct during a breath test can establish that the driver was incapable of driving safely under subsection (a)(1).

Com. v. Muhammad, Y. · filed 2020-02-07(a)(1)

Although there is more, this testimony without more was sufficient for the trial court to conclude that Appellant drove his vehicle “after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol such that [Appellant was] rendered incapable of safely driving, operating or being in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.” 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1).

Section 3802(d)(2) requires proof that a drug impaired the driver’s ability to drive safely; expert testimony, observations of impaired driving, and a medication warning can establish causation beyond a reasonable doubt.

Com. v. Coburn, A. · filed 2020-09-09(d)(2)

Doctor Labay’s expert testimony, in combination with Trooper Henley’s and Corporal Meister’s testimony regarding Coburn’s erratic driving and impairment, and the admission of the Ambien bottle label warning, are sufficient to prove the element of causation beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 3802(a)(1) prohibits driving after drinking enough alcohol to impair the ability to drive safely; evidence of substantial impairment can support a conviction without a blood alcohol test.

Com. v. Lyons, J. · filed 2020-10-06(a)(1)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lyons was substantially impaired so as to render him incapable of safely operating the vehicle that night.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a general impairment conviction based on circumstantial evidence that alcohol made the person unable to drive safely at the time of driving.

Com. v. Maples, E. · filed 2020-10-14(a)(1)

The trial testimony established the indicia of intoxication necessary for the court as factfinder to conclude that Appellant was unable to drive safely at the time she crashed her vehicle.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a DUI conviction when circumstantial evidence shows that a person drove after drinking enough alcohol to make driving unsafe.

Com. v. Clemens, J. · filed 2020-10-28(a)(1)

Such evidence supports a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Clemens was operating a motor vehicle after imbibing an amount of alcohol that made it unsafe for him to do so.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a finding that a driver was incapable of driving safely based on evidence of intoxication and the circumstances of a crash.

Com. v. Albertson, J. · filed 2020-11-17(a)(1)

The trial testimony established the requisite evidence of intoxication necessary for the jury as factfinder to conclude that Albertson was unable to drive safely at the time he crashed his vehicle into Sara Luckenbaugh’s house.

A blood alcohol level below 0.08% does not prevent convictions under § 3802(a)(1) or (d)(3) when other evidence proves unsafe driving caused by alcohol or the combined influence of alcohol and a drug.

Com. v. Rhedrick, D. · filed 2020-11-19(a)(1), (d)(3)

Moreover, at trial, the Commonwealth presented evidence that confirmed the presence of alcohol and Gabapentin in Appellant’s bloodstream. Evaluating the totality of the evidence presented, we agree with the trial court that there was sufficient to prove Appellant’s inability to drive safely due to the consumption of alcohol and drugs. As such, Appellant’s first two issues are without merit.

Section 3802(a)(1) requires proof that alcohol impaired a person’s ability to drive safely; an officer’s observations and field sobriety evidence can support that finding.

Com. v. Bennis, M. · filed 2020-12-04(a)(1)

Finally, we agree with the trial court and find the evidence was sufficient to show that alcohol substantially impaired Bennis’ normal mental and physical faculties required for her to safely operate a motor vehicle.

Section 3802(d) permits circumstantial evidence to establish that a person drove while under the influence of controlled substances.

Com. v. Leister, A. · filed 2021-04-20(d)

Given that Leister admitted she drove to Wawa and that she was seen “heavily intoxicated” inside Wawa, suggesting that she had ingested the various substances in her system with sufficient time for them to take effect, it is reasonably inferred that Leister had driven to Wawa while under the influence of the controlled substances.

Section 3802(a)(1)'s inability-to-drive-safely element can be proved by evidence of substantial alcohol consumption and a serious collision with a parked car.

Com. v. Reisinger, C. · filed 2021-05-04(a)(1)

In viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as verdict winner, there was sufficient evidence to enable the trial court, as fact-finder, to find that Appellant consumed a sufficient amount of alcohol such that she was unable to safely ... drive and operate her vehicle at the time of the accident beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 3802(d)(2) permits proof of drug impairment through officer observations, field sobriety tests, and the driver’s admission without blood test results.

Com. v. Kufrovich, J. · filed 2021-06-09(d)(2)

Although the Commonwealth was unable to corroborate the police officers’ observations and Kufrovich’s own admission with test results because she refused to submit to a blood draw, the evidence of her impairment was nevertheless substantial and sufficient to support her DUI conviction.

Section 3802(d)(2) permits a DUI conviction when an officer’s testimony and circumstantial evidence, including speeding, establish that cannabis impaired the driver’s ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Cruz, R. · filed 2021-06-14(d)(2)

Indeed, the mere fact that Cruz was driving 20 miles per hour over the speed limit in a small borough is also circumstantial evidence that he was incapable of safely operating his vehicle, because, at that speed, he was not safely operating it. ... As such, there was sufficient evidence of record from which the trial court could convict Cruz of DUI, under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2).

Section 3802(a)(1) permits proof of general-impairment DUI through observed unsafe driving and signs of intoxication without a blood alcohol test.

Com. v. Maneri, P. · filed 2021-07-22(a)(1)

Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, sufficient evidence supported Appellant’s DUI conviction.

Section 3802(a)(1) and (b) permit circumstantial evidence to establish actual physical control of a vehicle, unsafe impairment, and a qualifying blood alcohol concentration within two hours.

Com. v. Vaughn, M. · filed 2021-08-20(a)(1), (b)

The trial court properly found the circumstantial evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was in actual physical control of the vehicle, she was “incapable of safely driving, operating or being in actual physical control,” and her BAC was more than .10% within two hours of the actual physical control.

Section 3802(a)(1) requires proof that alcohol rendered the driver incapable of safe driving; erratic driving and signs of intoxication can support that finding.

Com. v. Solomon, J. · filed 2021-09-13(a)(1)

Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to prove that Appellant had imbibed an amount of alcohol that rendered him incapable of safe driving.

Circumstantial evidence, including an officer’s observations of impairment and a refused blood test, can establish DUI under § 3802(a)(1).

Com. v. Butcher, K. · filed 2021-11-01(a)(1)

Trooper Greenwood’s testimony, as well as ... Butcher’s refusal to undergo a blood alcohol test, does not leave us with “evidence [that] is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances.” ... Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, the Commonwealth met its burden of establishing each element of the offense of DUI.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits proof that alcohol made a driver incapable of safely driving through the combined evidence of driving behavior, signs of impairment, and field sobriety tests.

Com. v. Figueroa, T. · filed 2021-11-05(a)(1)

Moreover, the Officers testified to Figueroa’s erratic driving, which, when considered together with the above facts, demonstrated that Figueroa was not capable of safely operating her vehicle.

Section 3802(d)(2) allows drug impairment to be proved through evidence such as officer observations and field sobriety tests without expert testimony.

Com. v. Cordoba, V. · filed 2021-11-19(d)(2)

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has “determined that expert testimony is not necessary to establish impairment under subsection 3802(d)(2) where there exists other independent evidence of impairment.” ... The evidence presented at trial, in conjunction with applicable law, supports the trial court’s guilty verdict.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits proof that alcohol rendered a driver incapable of safe driving through observed driving, behavior, and signs of intoxication, even without a blood test.

Com. v. Ritchie, J. · filed 2022-01-05(a)(1)

Ritchie refused to submit to a blood test and exhibited signs of inebriation that both officers recognized as intoxication to the point where they could detect the odor of alcohol emanating ... from his orifices, clothing and car. In short, there was more than sufficient indicia that Ritchie was intoxicated to a degree that rendered him unable to drive safely, and the record fully supports a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was operating a motor vehicle after imbibing an amount of alcohol that made it unsafe for him to do so.

Section 3802(d)(2) permits proof of drug impairment and inability to drive safely through an admission, failed field sobriety tests, and officers’ observations.

Com. v. Strunk, S. · filed 2022-04-26(d)(2)

Viewing the totality of the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we conclude that the Commonwealth’s evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Appellant was intoxicated and incapable of safe driving. This evidence included Appellant’s admission to using methamphetamine, her failure of multiple field sobriety tests, and the Troopers’ conclusions that Appellant was impaired and incapable of safe driving.

Section 3802(a)(1) and (d)(2) allow alcohol and drug impairment to be proved through circumstantial evidence, including observed behavior and failed field sobriety tests.

Com. v. Flood, J. · filed 2022-05-11(a)(1), (d)(2)

Based upon the totality of the evidence presented at trial, the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for [DUI] under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1) and 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2). ... We agree with the trial court’s cogent analysis and conclude that Appellant’s claims on appeal thus fail.

Section 3802(a)(1) allows a DUI conviction based on circumstantial evidence that a person drove while impaired by alcohol.

Com. v. Bridgeford, V · filed 2022-05-13(a)(1)

Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, the Commonwealth presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to sustain Appellant’s conviction for DUI.

Under Section 3802(a)(1) and (c), circumstantial evidence may establish that a person drove, operated, or controlled a vehicle while unable to drive safely or with a blood alcohol concentration of at least 0.16% within two hours.

Com. v. Fallon, F. · filed 2022-05-19(a)(1), (c)

Given the totality of the circumstances and reviewing the facts in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as verdict-winner, the evidence was sufficient to establish Fallon drove, operated, or was in actual physical control of the vehicle while so intoxicated as to be incapable of safely driving and while having a BAC greater than 0.16.

Section 3802(a)(1) requires proof that alcohol consumption made the driver incapable of driving safely; officer testimony and video footage can establish that impairment.

Com. v. Miller, D. · filed 2022-08-03(a)(1)

Officer Stevens’ testimony and the MVR footage provided sufficient evidence to prove that Appellant was incapable of safe driving.

Section 3802(a)(1) requires proof that the defendant drove while alcohol rendered him incapable of driving safely; circumstantial evidence can establish that fact.

Com. v. Harper, J. · filed 2022-09-07(a)(1)

The trial court properly applied the law to its findings of fact. Accordingly, the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate Appellant drove his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and incapable of safe driving.

Section 3802(d)(2) requires proof that drug use impaired the driver’s ability to drive safely; physical signs, field sobriety test results, and speeding can collectively establish that impairment.

Com. v. Massey, R. · filed 2022-09-14(d)(2)

Collectively, such evidence permitted a reasonable finder of fact to conclude that Appellant drove his vehicle at a time when his marijuana use impaired his ability to drive safely.

For general impairment, an officer’s observation of slurred speech can be evidence without prior knowledge of the driver’s speech, and field sobriety tests can support a finding of intoxication.

Com. v. Potsko, A. · filed 2022-09-20(a)(1)

Nowhere does Appellant cite any law that says a police officer’s observation of slurred speech is “not evidence” unless the officer has prior observations of that person’s speech. Nor does she explain why a trained officer should be deemed unable to recognize slurred speech absent prior observations of the suspect’s speech. ... Furthermore, Appellant’s argument fails to account for the numerous other ways, set forth above, in which Trooper Roman’s field sobriety tests revealed evidence of Appellant’s intoxication. ... Appellant’s sufficiency of the evidence argument fails.

Section 3802(a)(1) prohibits driving after consuming enough alcohol to render the driver incapable of safely driving; evidence of impaired behavior and unsafe driving can support a conviction.

Com. v. Ogden, T. · filed 2022-09-21(a)(1)

In summary, the evidence credited by the trial court established that Appellant’s inebriation rendered him incapable of safely driving a vehicle in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1), and Appellant’s inebriation, not an intervening factor, caused serious injuries to the accident victims in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3735.1(a).

Convictions under § 3802(a)(1) and (d)(3) may rest on credible observations of impairment without an accident or traffic violation.

Com. v. Robinson, D. · filed 2022-09-30(a)(1), (d)(3)

Upon review of the record and aforementioned legal authority, we agree the evidence at Appellant’s non-jury trial was sufficient for the trial court to convict Appellant of DUI under 3802(a)(1) and (d)(3).

Section 3802(d)(2) permits a DUI conviction based on circumstantial evidence that a drug impaired the driver’s ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Woldezghi, L. · filed 2022-12-07(d)(2)

Based upon our review of the record and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Woldezghi was under the influence of a controlled substance which impaired his ability to safely drive his vehicle.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a finding of general impairment based on traffic violations, signs of intoxication, and failed field sobriety tests.

Com. v. Hernandez, G. · filed 2023-03-13(a)(1)

After evaluating the record, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support Hernandez’s conviction for DUI—general impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 3802(d)(2) requires proof that a drug impaired the driver’s ability to drive safely; evidence of active THC influence and observed impairment can support a conviction.

Com. v. Reid, K. · filed 2023-05-10(d)(2)

We find that the totality of the circumstances presented sufficient evidence to establish that Reid was under the influence of marijuana such that his ability to drive a vehicle was impaired.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a DUI conviction based on circumstantial evidence that alcohol rendered a driver incapable of safely driving.

Com. v. Pleso, J. · filed 2023-06-12(a)(1)

As noted previously, Corporal Quinn’s testimony provided the trial court with sufficient circumstantial evidence that Appellant had imbibed a sufficient amount of alcohol such that it rendered him incapable of safely driving, operating, or being in physical control of a vehicle.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a general impairment conviction when evidence proves that alcohol made a person unable to drive safely at the time of driving.

Com. v. Murphy, M. · filed 2023-07-17(a)(1)

Construed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was intoxicated at the time he drove or operated his vehicle on August 1, 2020.

Section 3802(d)(2) requires proof that a drug impaired the individual’s ability to safely drive, operate, or control a vehicle.

Com. v. Parthemore, B. · filed 2023-08-09(d)(2)

Thus, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Parthemore, while driving or operating a vehicle, was under the influence of a drug to a degree that impaired her ability to safely drive or operate a vehicle.

Witness observations of a driver’s condition, followed by blood test results showing alcohol and marijuana, can support DUI convictions under Section 3802.

Com. v. Chinery, T. · filed 2023-10-06

In light of the foregoing, undisputed evidence, we agree the evidence at trial supported a finding of guilt on Appellant’s four DUI counts.

Section 3802(d)(2) permits a conviction based on evidence of erratic driving, failed field sobriety tests, and admitted drug use without a blood test.

Com. v. Ashelman, S. · filed 2023-11-27(d)(2)

On this record, we agree with the trial court that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant’s DUI conviction.

Section 3802(d)(2) permits a conviction when observations of drug impairment and failed field sobriety tests establish that the driver’s ability to drive safely was impaired.

Com. v. McCalla, C. · filed 2023-12-26(d)(2)

Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, this evidence is sufficient to establish that Appellant drove his vehicle “under the influence of a drug or combination of drugs to a degree which impair[ed Appellant’s] ability to safely drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.”

Section 3802 DUI convictions can be sustained by circumstantial evidence of driving after alcohol and marijuana use, together with blood test results and the driver’s statements.

Com. v. Rodriguez, A. · filed 2024-02-27

Moreover, the evidence delineated above, in combination with the blood tests results, Rodriguez’s certified driver history, and his statements at the scene and at the hospital, are more than sufficient to sustain his DUI, driving with a suspended license, and careless driving convictions.

Under Section 3802(a)(1), a driver’s blood alcohol level and observed signs of intoxication can support a finding that the driver could not safely operate a vehicle.

Com. v. Oknefski, E. · filed 2024-02-28(a)(1)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we conclude that it was reasonable for the trial court, sitting ... as fact-finder, to determine that Appellant was not capable of safely operating his vehicle.

Section 3802(d)(2) permits a conviction when the evidence shows that drugs impaired a person’s ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Tate, B. · filed 2024-01-04(d)(2)

Upon review, we conclude the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient to establish Appellant was under the influence of a drug, or combination of drugs, to a degree which impaired his ability to drive safely.

Section 3802(d)(2) allows a conviction for drug impaired driving based on circumstantial evidence of impaired driving without expert testimony.

Com. v. Black, S. · filed 2024-05-07(d)(2)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as we ... must, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s verdict of guilt for violating Section 3802(d)(2).

Section 3802(d)(2) prohibits driving while under the influence of drugs to a degree that impairs the ability to drive safely; observations of impairment and failed sobriety tests can support a conviction.

Com. v. Tyler, Jr., N. · filed 2024-07-02(d)(2)

We find that the totality of the circumstances presented sufficient evidence to establish that Tyler was under the influence of marijuana such that his ability to safely drive a vehicle was impaired.

Section 3802(a)(1) allows evidence of unsafe driving, signs of intoxication, failed field sobriety tests, and a positive breath test to establish that alcohol rendered a driver incapable of driving safely.

Com. v. Lower, D. · filed 2024-09-30(a)(1)

Appellant was convicted of violating 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1). ... Thus, viewing the aforementioned evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we conclude that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant’s conviction for DUI – general impairment.

Section 3802(a)(1) requires proof that alcohol made a person incapable of driving safely; erratic driving, signs of intoxication, and poor field sobriety performance can establish that impairment.

Com. v. Lower, D. · filed 2024-10-15(a)(1)

When viewing the aforementioned evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we conclude that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant’s conviction for DUI – general impairment.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits officers’ testimony about erratic driving and signs of impairment to establish DUI general impairment.

Com. v. Lee, R. · filed 2024-11-21(a)(1)

The officers’ testimony alone was sufficient to support a conviction of DUI.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a general impairment conviction when evidence of alcohol consumption and unsafe driving shows that the driver could not safely operate the vehicle.

Com. v. Bruschi, R. · filed 2024-12-16(a)(1)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as required by our sufficiency review, there was ample evidence that Appellant was unable to safely operate his vehicle on January 8, 2023.

Section 3802(d)(2) allows drug impairment that affects safe driving to be proved through witness observations, field sobriety tests, and a refusal to submit to a blood test.

Com. v. Deluca, K. · filed 2025-03-17(d)(2)

Furthermore, Appellant refused to submit to a blood test, which the trial court could consider along with the other evidence presented. See Caraballo, supra. Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict-winner, this evidence was sufficient to convict Appellant of DUI of a controlled substance.

Circumstantial evidence can establish that a driver consumed alcohol before operating a vehicle and support convictions for DUI-general impairment and DUI-highest rate of alcohol.

Com. v. Sarnicky, J. · filed 2025-03-25(a)(1), (c)

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as verdict winner, and based on our review of the certified record, the briefs, and the relevant law, we conclude that the trial court correctly determined that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to prove that Sarnicky operated his vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

Evidence that a defendant drove while too intoxicated to drive safely and had a BAC over 0.16 can support convictions under Section 3802(a)(1) and (c).

Com. v. Weber, A. · filed 2025-04-08(a)(1), (c)

Read in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, the entire record of the Commonwealth’s evidence establishes that [Weber] was the driver [on December 20, 2020], that [he] was intoxicated to the extent that he was not capable of safe driving, and that [Weber’s BAC] was in excess of 0.16. The evidence is more than sufficient to support the verdict. ... We adopt the above analysis as the opinion of this Court.

Section 3802(a)(1) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that alcohol rendered the driver incapable of safely driving; driving behavior, field sobriety tests, alcohol odor, and refusal of chemical testing may support that finding.

Com. v. Day, T. · filed 2025-04-29(a)(1)

Thus, contrary to Day’s claim otherwise, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to establish that she was incapable of safely driving.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits proof through circumstantial evidence that alcohol rendered a person incapable of safe driving; field sobriety and blood alcohol tests are not required.

Com. v. Kocher, J. · filed 2025-07-24(a)(1)

Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, sufficient circumstantial evidence supported the court’s conclusion that Appellant had consumed an amount of alcohol that rendered him incapable of safe driving.

Section 3802(d)(3) prohibits driving when the combined influence of alcohol and drugs impairs the ability to drive safely.

Com. v. Bender, J. · filed 2025-09-09(d)(3)

In viewing the evidence pursuant to the proper standard, there was considerable undisputed evidence that Appellant operated a vehicle and that he was “under the combined influence of alcohol and a drug” to a degree that impaired his ability to do so at that time.

Section 3802(d)(2) allows the Commonwealth to prove that marijuana impaired a person’s ability to drive safely through circumstantial evidence, without expert testimony.

Com. v. Skolnick, J. · filed 2025-12-09(d)(2)

Under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that, even without expert testimony in this matter, the Commonwealth’s evidence supported a finding that Skolnick was under the influence of marijuana to a degree that impaired his ability to drive safely.

Section 3802(a)(1) prohibits driving after drinking enough alcohol to impair safe driving, while subsection (b) prohibits driving with a blood or breath alcohol concentration of at least 0.10% but less than 0.16% within two hours.

Com. v. Rutledge, D. · filed 2026-01-09(a)(1), (b)

Regarding both of his DUI convictions, the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Rutledge was driving the vehicle and that his BAC was between 0.10% and 0.16%.

Section 3802(a)(1) allows a general impairment conviction based on driving behavior and other signs that alcohol made the driver incapable of safe driving.

Com. v. Denison, R. · filed 2026-01-21(a)(1)

Upon review of the record, we agree with the trial court that the Commonwealth provided sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant’s conviction ... under Section 3802(a)(1). ... Therefore, viewed in the most favorable light to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, the evidence here supported the trial court’s conclusion that Appellant was substantially impaired by alcohol and incapable of safe driving.

Section 3802 permits DUI convictions when evidence of vehicle operation and intoxication, including blood test results, proves the charged offenses.

Com. v. Rae, C. · filed 2025-12-02(a)(1), (c), (d)(3)

Therefore, Appellant was not “merely present” in his vehicle while intoxicated, and officers had reasonable bases to believe Appellant had operated the vehicle while intoxicated. ... Further, blood tests confirmed that Appellant’s BAC was well over .16% and contained THC metabolites. On this record, the evidence was sufficient to support each of Appellant’s DUI convictions.

Circumstantial evidence can establish a violation of Section 3802(a)(1) when it shows that a driver was too intoxicated to operate safely while traveling on a highway or trafficway before reaching the accident scene.

Com. v. Rodgers, J. · filed 2025-10-09(a)(1)

These facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, made it reasonable for the court to infer that Appellant was intoxicated to the point that he was incapable of safely operating his vehicle prior to arriving at the cemetery. As Appellant must have driven his vehicle on a trafficway or highway to get into the cemetery, the evidence was sufficient to prove this element of his DUI conviction.

Erratic driving, signs of intoxication, and a .262 blood alcohol concentration can support convictions for general impairment and the highest rate of alcohol under Section 3802.

Com. v. Johnson, J. · filed 2026-01-06(a)(1), (c)

Based upon this evidence, Appellant was convicted of DUI – general impairment pursuant to section 3802(a)(1), and DUI – highest rate of alcohol pursuant to section 3802(c). After review, we conclude that the evidence adduced at trial sufficiently supports each of these convictions.

Section 3802(d)(2) prohibits driving while under the influence of a drug to a degree that impairs the ability to drive safely; impairment may be proved through the combined circumstances.

Com. v. Morton, L. · filed 2026-01-15(d)(2)

These factors, when considered together, reflect that the Commonwealth presented ... sufficient evidence that Morton was incapable of safe driving.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a DUI conviction when evidence shows that a bicyclist drank enough alcohol to be incapable of operating the bicycle safely.

Com. v. Locchetto, A. · filed 2026-01-23(a)(1)

Upon review of the record, we agree with the trial court that the Commonwealth provided sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant’s conviction under Section 3802(a)(1). ... Accordingly, viewed in the most favorable light to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, the evidence here supported the trial court’s conclusion that Appellant was impaired by alcohol and incapable of safe driving, as it demonstrated that he operated the bicycle, struggled with controlling it, and rode it into a pole, smelled of alcohol, spoke incoherently, and could not maintain his balance even when not riding the bicycle.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a DUI conviction based on witness observations and behavior showing alcohol impaired the ability to drive safely, even without field sobriety or chemical tests.

Com. v. Babadzhanov, A. · filed 2026-03-11(a)(1)

Based on our review of the evidence presented at trial, we conclude that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s determination that Appellant was guilty of DUI. ... The totality of the evidence presented to the jury supports Appellant’s DUI conviction.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits proof of general impairment through circumstantial evidence that alcohol rendered a driver unable to drive safely.

Com. v. Marshall, B. · filed 2026-04-29(a)(1)

Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, this evidence demonstrates that Appellant was impaired beyond the ability to safely operate a vehicle.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a general impairment conviction based on signs of intoxication and an accident, without chemical or field sobriety test results.

Com. v. Watts, S. · filed 2026-05-08(a)(1)

Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, the above-described testimony, together with the occurrence of an accident, was sufficient to support Appellant’s DUI conviction.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a general impairment conviction when the totality of the evidence shows that alcohol rendered the driver unable to drive safely.

Com. v. Clay, N. · filed 2026-05-19(a)(1)

Based on the totality of the circumstances and the evidence found credible by the trial court, we conclude the Commonwealth’s evidence supported the determination that Appellant’s judgment was impaired by her admitted alcohol use, rendering her unsafe to operate her vehicle.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits a conviction when circumstantial evidence proves that a person drove while alcohol rendered them incapable of driving safely.

Com. v. Dilley, M. · filed 2026-06-08(a)(1)

In viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the verdict winner, we concur with the trial court, and the record supports, that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence that Appellant was driving, operating, or in actual physical control of the movement of her vehicle at the time of the accident and, at such time, she was rendered incapable of safely doing so due to the consumption of alcohol.

A conviction under § 3802(d)(1)(ii) can rest on circumstantial evidence that a person controlled a vehicle while an unprescribed Schedule II controlled substance was in the person’s blood.

Com. v. Miller, C. · filed 2022-07-19(d)(1)(ii)

The record supports the court’s analysis that the evidence was sufficient to support Appellant’s DUI conviction. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(1)(ii); Sebolka, supra.

Section 3802(d)(2) permits a drug-impaired driving conviction based on evidence of unsafe driving and impairment without blood test results or expert testimony.

Com. v. David, G. · filed 2026-01-23(d)(2)

Upon review of the record, we agree with the trial court that the Commonwealth provided sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant’s conviction ... under Section 3802(d)(2).

Section 3802(d)(1) prohibits driving with a Schedule I controlled substance in the blood without requiring proof of impairment; a resulting fatality may be considered at sentencing.

Com. v. Campbell, M. · filed 2016-10-28(d)(1)

The fact that the accident occurred and resulted in the child’s death actualized the inherent risks underlying the zero-tolerance policies in Subsection (d)(1), and Subsection(d)(1)(i) in particular. Therefore, we cannot agree with Appellant’s proposition that the fatality was irrelevant or an impermissible factor.

Section 3802's DUI elements are substantially similar to New Jersey's DWI law, so a Pennsylvania DUI conviction can qualify as a predicate offense under New Jersey's repeat suspended driving statute.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. THOMAS BURNS(14-10-0878, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) · filed 2017-06-12

The elements of Pennsylvania's DUI statute, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802 ("incapable of safely driving"), are also of a "substantially similar nature" to Article IV(a)(2) of the DLC ("incapable of driving safely") because both provisions focus upon individuals who are incapable of driving safely.

A prior DUI conviction is not an element of a Section 3802 offense; it is a factor for grading and sentencing.

Com. v. Good, M. · filed 2018-02-12

However, because a prior DUI conviction is not an element of the charged crimes, but rather, as discussed infra, a factor to consider for enhancement and sentencing purposes, evidentiary sufficiency is not implicated in this issue.

Section 3802(c)'s highest-rate-of-alcohol DUI offense does not require actual or attempted violence.

Holloway v. Sessions · filed 2018-09-28(c)

Notwithstanding defendants' contention that Holloway's crime of conviction was dangerous, under Pennsylvania law, actual or attempted violence is not an element of driving under the influence at the highest rate of alcohol.

Section 3802(c) requires proof that the defendant drove or controlled a vehicle and had a blood alcohol concentration of at least 0.16% within two hours.

Com. v. Hall, C. · filed 2018-11-21(c)

A conviction of DUI (highest rate of alcohol) requires proof that (1) the defendant was driving, operating, or in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle, and (2) the defendant's blood alcohol content was 0.16% or higher within two hours of driving, operating, or being in control of the vehicle. 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(c).

Section 3802(c)'s highest-rate DUI offense has no element of violence.

Williams v. Barr · filed 2019-04-01(c)

Here, Williams was convicted of DUI at the highest rate of intoxication, an offense that contains no element of violence.

Section 3802(a)(1) does not make refusal of chemical testing an element of general-impairment DUI, so refusal need not be shown at a preliminary hearing on that charge.

Com. v. Harris, A. · filed 2019-04-16(a)(1)

Since refusal is not an element of the crime of DUI—general impairment, we see no basis for the trial court to have required the Commonwealth present evidence of Harris’s refusal at the preliminary hearing.

Section 3802(d)(1) requires the Commonwealth to prove that a person operated a vehicle with a controlled substance metabolite in their blood.

Com. v. Brown, F. · filed 2019-06-04(d)(1)

Under this provision, the Commonwealth was required to establish that Brown operated a motor vehicle with a metabolite in his blood.

Section 3802 requires proof that the accused was driving when the DUI charge rests on driving.

Com. v. West, A. · filed 2020-05-08

Appellant was convicted of DUI and driving while his privileges were suspended, which obviously require that Appellant was driving.

Section 3802(d)(2) supports probable cause for a controlled-substances DUI arrest when the circumstances reasonably indicate that drug impairment made the person unable to operate a vehicle safely.

Com. v. Albano, B. · filed 2021-11-10(d)(2)

Based upon the following, probable cause existed to arrest her for driving under the influence – controlled substances as it was a reasonable inference to believe that Albano was unable to safely operate the vehicle due to her apparent inebriation.

A barricade, the presence of officers, and a third offense are not elements of the impaired-driving offense under Section 3802(d)(2).

Com. v. Davis, M · filed 2023-08-03(d)(2)

The factors considered by the court, including the presence of a barricade that all the other motorists followed, the presence of officers, and the fact that it was a third offense, are not elements of the offense.

Section 3802(a)(1) prohibits operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol; refusing blood or breath testing is not an element of the offense.

State v. Kirueya · filed 2025-01-21(a)(1)

Kirueya admits he was convicted of violating 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3802, a statute that does not provide refusal as an element of the crime.

Multiple convictions under Section 3802(d)(1) arising from a single act of driving merge for sentencing.

Com. v. Westlake, C. · filed 2023-05-31(d)(1)

For these reasons, we conclude that Appellant’s conviction for 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(1)(iii) merges with his conviction for 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(1)(ii) for purposes of sentencing, and we vacate the sentence of no further penalty for 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(1)(iii).

Section 3802(a)(1) does not permit two convictions for the same DUI-general-impairment offense arising from a single act, even when the convictions merge for sentencing.

Commonwealth v. Bezick · filed 2019-04-01(a)(1)

At counts two and three, Appellant was convicted of two separate DUI offenses, DUI-general impairment, second offense, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1), pursuant to a single criminal act. ... Pursuant to the directive of Farrow, we are constrained to vacate Appellant’s conviction and sentence at count two, affirm Appellant’s conviction but vacate her sentence at count three, and remand for resentencing at count three, consistent with Farrow, 168 A.3d at 219.

Section 3802(a)(1) permits only one general impairment charge for a single criminal act, even when a sentencing enhancement applies.

Com. v. McCoy, S. · filed 2019-03-14(a)(1)

Significantly, the Commonwealth cannot charge a defendant with multiple violations of the same DUI provision for a single criminal act.

Section 3802(a)(1) and (a)(2) provide alternative ways to prove DUI-general impairment; a single act cannot receive separate sentences under both.

Com. v. Burton, J. · filed 2019-07-12(a)(1), (a)(2)

Thus, the imposition of separate sentences under Section 3802(a)(1) and (a)(2) for Appellant’s single act of DUI-general impairment constitutes an illegal sentence.

Convictions under Sections 3802(a)(1) and (c) arising from a single act merge for sentencing.

Com. v. Williams, M. · filed 2020-08-21(a)(1), (c)

This Court has long recognized that a defendant cannot be subjected to multiple penalties for violating one or more subsections of Section 3802 by a single criminal act. ... Based on the above, we conclude that Appellant’s DUI convictions should have merged for sentencing purposes, and by failing to merge these convictions, the court imposed an illegal sentence.

Section 3802(d)(1) allows a single act of driving with a controlled substance and its metabolite in the blood to support convictions under both alternatives, but only one sentence.

Com. v. Given, S. · filed 2020-12-23(d)(1)

Applying these principles, we conclude that, where the defendant committed a single act of driving while his blood contained a parent compound and a metabolite of the same controlled substance, the defendant should not be subject to separate sentences for multiple convictions arising under Section 3802(d)(1).

Subsections 3802(d)(1) and (d)(2) impose strict liability and do not require proof of mens rea.

Com. v. Macik, T. · filed 2024-07-01(d)(1), (d)(2)

Having determined that there is no mens rea element to the subsection 3802(d)(1) and (2) offenses for which Macik was convicted, we conclude that her sufficiency claims must necessarily fail.

Section 3802(d)(1) and (d)(2) do not require proof of mens rea for driving with prohibited controlled substances in the blood or while impaired by drugs, respectively.

Com. v. Macik, T. · filed 2024-06-03(d)(1), (d)(2)

Here, although the General Assembly did not indicate a legislative purpose to impose absolute liability, it is evident from the minimal term of imprisonment required following a subsection 3802(d) conviction that the legislature intended subsection 3802(d) of the DUI statute to impose strict liability offenses that do not require proof of mens rea.

Section 3802(a)(1) is a strict liability offense; the Commonwealth need not prove that the defendant consumed alcohol intentionally or knowingly.

Com. v. Peterson, J. · filed 2025-04-07(a)(1)

To the extent Appellant invites this Court to read a mens rea element into § 3802(a)(1), we decline to do so. DUI: general impairment / incapable of driving safely is a strict liability offense, and as such the Commonwealth bears no burden of demonstrating that Appellant imbibed alcohol intentionally or knowingly.

Section 3802(d)(2) requires no culpable mental state, so an involuntary intoxication defense does not apply.

Com. v. Whitcomb, H. · filed 2025-08-20(d)(2)

Because we do not find support in either the statutory or common law in this Commonwealth, we hold that involuntary intoxication, should it exist as a defense, does not apply to 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(2).

If involuntary intoxication is available as a defense to DUI under subsections (a)(1) and (c), the defendant must prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.

Com. v. Kostek, J. · filed 2025-07-18(a)(1), (c)

In sum, as Kostek failed to prove the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication by a preponderance of the evidence, we affirm his judgment of sentence.