Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 1832 EDA 2018

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Citation: 203 A.3d 1115
• Docket Number: No. 1832 EDA 2018,1832 EDA 2018
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Franklin Dale WYATT, Appellee
• Decision Date: 07 February 2019

203 A.3d 1115

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant
v.
Franklin Dale WYATT, Appellee

No. 1832 EDA 2018

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted December 10, 2018
Filed February 07, 2019

Elmer D. Christine, Jr., District Attorney, and Curtis J. Rogers, Assistant District Attorney, Stroudsburg, for Commonwealth, appellant.

Marc Neff, Philadelphia, for appellee.

BEFORE: OTT, J., DUBOW, J. and STRASSBURGER, J.^*

OPINION BY STRASSBURGER, J.:

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the order granting Franklin Dale Wyatt's pre-trial motion for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

We glean the following factual and procedural history from the record. Briefly, on June 3, 2015, Wyatt was driving a tractor-trailer southbound on Interstate 380 (I-380). At approximately 10:00 a.m., Wyatt's vehicle crossed the grassy median separating the north- and southbound lanes of travel on I-380 and struck a northbound tractor-trailer and passenger bus, resulting in the deaths of three people and serious injuries to five others.

Based on the foregoing, the Commonwealth charged Wyatt with eight counts of

203 A.3d 1117

aggravated assault by vehicle, three counts of homicide by vehicle, three counts of involuntary manslaughter, 17 counts of recklessly endangering another person, and one count each of disregarding traffic lanes, careless driving, and reckless driving.

Wyatt filed several pre-trial motions.¹ Relevant to this appeal, he filed a motion for writ of habeas corpus² as to all charges, except disregarding traffic lanes and careless driving, challenging the Commonwealth's prima facie evidence for the mens rea requirement of recklessness or gross negligence. A hearing was held on April 13, 2018. At the hearing, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of the affiant, Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Tyler Waters, along with several exhibits, to support its theory of recklessness based on distracted driving. On June 20, 2018, the trial court issued an order and opinion which, inter alia , granted Wyatt's motion for writ of habeas corpus. This timely-filed appeal followed.³

On appeal, the Commonwealth presents one question for our review: whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence of recklessness or gross negligence in order to sustain its prima facie burden at the habeas corpus proceeding. Commonwealth's Brief at 4. We begin with our standard of review.

"We review a decision to grant a pre-trial petition for a writ of habeas corpus by examining the evidence and reasonable inferences derived therefrom in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth." Commonwealth v. Dantzler , 135 A.3d 1109, 1111 (Pa. Super. 2016) (en banc ) (citation omitted). Whether the Commonwealth satisfied its burden of establishing a prima facie case for each charged crime is a question of law, to which this Court's standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. See Commonwealth v. Karetny , 583 Pa. 514, 880 A.2d 505, 528 (2005).

A pre-trial habeas corpus motion is the proper means for testing whether the Commonwealth has sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. 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. To meet its burden, the Commonwealth may utilize the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing and also may submit additional proof.

Dantzler , 135 A.3d at 1112 (citations and quotations marks omitted).

In his memorandum in support of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus , Wyatt contended that the Commonwealth could not establish criminal culpability and thus

203 A.3d 1118

failed to establish the mens rea requirement for aggravated assault by vehicle, homicide by vehicle, involuntary manslaughter, recklessly endangering another person, and reckless driving. Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus , 5/1/2018, a 12-13 (unnumbered). Because recklessness and gross negligence are equivalent states of mind for the crimes Wyatt challenged, see Commonwealth v. Huggins , 575 Pa. 395, 836 A.2d 862, 868 (2003), we refer to the mens rea requirement simply as recklessness, keeping the following in mind.

A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and intent of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.

Id. at 868–69 (quoting 18 Pa.C.S. § 302(b)(3) ).

...