Com. v. Fulmer

• Decision Date: 03 March 1993
• Citation: 621 A.2d 146,423 Pa.Super. 338
• Parties: , 81 Ed. Law Rep. 875 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Susan Lee FULMER, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

Page 146

621 A.2d 146

423 Pa.Super. 338, 81 Ed. Law Rep. 875

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Susan Lee FULMER, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Dec. 2, 1992.

Filed March 3, 1993.

John G. Harshman, Warrendale, for appellant.

Kemal A. Mericli, Asst. Dist. Atty., Pittsburgh, for Com., appellee.

Before ROWLEY, President Judge, and DEL SOLE and CERCONE, JJ.

ROWLEY, President Judge:

Susan Lee Fulmer (hereinafter "appellant") appeals from an order dismissing her statutory appeal and upholding her conviction for violating § 3345(a) of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code ¹. Appellant claims that the trial court erred in the following three particulars: (1) it committed an error of law in failing to require the Commonwealth to follow the citation filing procedure delineated in § 3345(a.1) of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code; (2) it erred as a matter of law by improperly admitting into evidence, over appellant's timely objection, hearsay testimony regarding allegedly self-incriminating statements made by her at her summary trial; and (3) it abused its discretion by improperly questioning appellant as to factual matters while she was attempting to conduct pro se cross-examination of a Commonwealth witness despite the fact that she had exercised her constitutional right not to take the stand on her own behalf. After careful review, we reverse the trial court's order and discharge appellant.

On October 17, 1991, at approximately 3:15 p.m., appellant, a school teacher, is alleged to have overtaken a school bus, driven by one Dawn Wolslayer, while its flashing red lights and stop signal arm were activated at a school bus stop. The bus operator did not see the driver of the car which overtook the bus nor could she identify the car's color. However, she testified at trial that she had seen three of the digits on the car's license plate.

On October 18, 1991, the bus operator received a note from the mother of one of her passengers which identified appellant as the driver of the car which had overtaken Wolslayer's bus on the previous day. Wolslayer gave this information to her supervisor, who in turn verbally communicated it to Officer William Leo of the Hampton Township Police Department. Officer Leo testified at trial that he conducted an investigation and then issued a citation.

On November 20, 1991, appellant was found guilty by District Justice Regis Welsh and she filed a timely pro se appeal. A de novo trial before the Honorable Judge R. Scheib was then held, in which appellant was again adjudged guilty of violating § 3345(a). A fine was imposed. On February 4, 1992, appellant filed a timely post-trial motion in arrest of judgment, which was dismissed following argument. This timely appeal followed.

To our knowledge, the issue of whether section 3345(a.1) of the Motor Vehicle Code requires a police officer to file a school bus operator's report with a copy of the citation when the officer first learns of the alleged violation from a school bus operator has not previously been reviewed by this Court. The statute at issue in this case, describing the procedure by which a citation should be issued for a violation of § 3345(a), provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(a.1) Reports by school bus operators--

(1) The operator of a school bus who observes a violation of subsection (a) may prepare a signed, written report which indicates that a violation has occurred. To the extent possible, the report shall include the following information:

(i) Information, if any, pertaining to the identity of the alleged violator.

(ii) The license number and color of the vehicle involved in the violation.

(iii) The time and approximate location at which the violation occurred.

(iv) Identification of the vehicle as automobile, station wagon, motor truck, motor bus, motor cycle or other type of vehicle.

(2) Within 48 hours after the violation occurs, the school bus operator shall deliver a copy of the report to a police officer having authority to exercise police power in the area where the violation occurred. If the police officer believes that the report establishes a sufficient basis for the issuance of a citation, the officer shall file a citation and the report with the issuing authority.

(3) A person may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subsection or in accordance with any means authorized by the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3345(a) and (a.1) (emphasis added).

Appellant argues that the plain meaning of the above-quoted statute requires that whenever a police officer learns of an alleged violation of § 3345(a) through the report of a school bus driver, as opposed to any other person, the report must be filed with the citation because otherwise, the purpose of the statute would be frustrated ². In support of her argument, appellant has cited a case decided by the Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas, Commonwealth v. Charles, 6 Pa.D. & C. 4th 255 (1990), in which it was held, under facts very similar to those in the instant case, that ...