Cody James Levay appeals his conviction for driving under the influence (DUI), second offense, following a non-jury trial in the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas. Levay contests the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, asserting that the Commonwealth failed to demonstrate his impairment during the accident on July 4, 2017.
Key facts include that Sergeant Nunzio Santo Colombo arrived at the accident scene, where Levay was found injured and next to a damaged motorcycle. Levay admitted to being the driver and exhibited signs of alcohol consumption, including a strong odor of alcohol and red, glassy eyes. Although he claimed to have last consumed alcohol at 2:30 p.m., Sergeant Colombo deemed this statement unreasonable based on his observations. Levay refused a blood alcohol test at the hospital, requesting a breath test that was unavailable.
At trial, Sergeant Colombo testified that Levay was impaired to a degree that made him incapable of safely driving. The trial court convicted Levay of DUI but acquitted him of other charges. He was sentenced to six months of probation and related restrictions on April 26, 2021. After the trial court denied his post-sentence motions, Levay filed a timely appeal, raising two main questions regarding the sufficiency of evidence for his conviction and the trial court's determination on the weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision.
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of evidence supporting his DUI conviction, asserting that the Commonwealth failed to establish impairment during driving. He highlights that while Sergeant Santo Colombo detected a strong odor of alcohol and noted the accident scene, there was no testimony regarding the circumstances of driving at the time of the accident. Appellant claims that the presence of alcohol odor and his red, glassy eyes, exacerbated by severe facial injuries, do not adequately prove impairment or causation of the accident. Although he acknowledges the ability to infer involvement in the accident and suggests possible intoxication, he argues the lack of eyewitness accounts during the driving phase means the Commonwealth did not satisfy its burden of proof. The legal standard for sufficiency of evidence requires evaluating all trial evidence favorably towards the verdict winner, without substituting the fact-finder's judgment. The Commonwealth's proof does not need to eliminate every possibility of innocence, and circumstantial evidence can be sufficient. The trier of fact may determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight of evidence. Under the relevant statute, DUI is defined as driving after consuming enough alcohol to impair safe operation of the vehicle. The Commonwealth must demonstrate that the defendant was operating a vehicle after sufficient alcohol consumption that impaired mental and physical faculties necessary for safe driving.
Substantial impairment does not require an extreme level of disability. Section 3802(a)(1) allows the Commonwealth broad latitude in demonstrating that an accused was operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol to a degree that impaired safe driving. The trial court established that Appellant had operated a motorcycle, leading to the central inquiry of whether the Commonwealth proved that alcohol consumption rendered him incapable of safe driving. The court found sufficient evidence for a DUI conviction, including observations by Sergeant Santo Colombo, who noted favorable road and weather conditions, leaving unsafe driving as the only explanation for the accident. Colombo detected a strong odor of alcohol and observed Appellant's red, glassy eyes, which suggested intoxication. Despite admitting to alcohol consumption earlier, Appellant's statement was deemed unreasonable by Colombo, who also noted Appellant's initial refusal of medical treatment, later consenting only after encouragement. Appellant's refusal to provide a blood alcohol sample at the hospital could be considered evidence of consciousness of guilt. The court acknowledged that intoxication is within common knowledge, allowing lay opinions on the matter, and a police officer can provide an opinion on a person's intoxication. The trial court supported its findings with circumstantial evidence, including the nature of the accident, Appellant's admissions, and the officer's observations, affirming that the Commonwealth does not need to eliminate all possibilities of innocence to establish DUI. Ultimately, the evidence presented sufficiently demonstrated that Appellant was driving while under the influence and incapable of safe operation of his motorcycle.
Appellant acknowledges that the trial court could reasonably infer his involvement in an accident and that Sergeant Santo Colombo's observations suggested intoxication. Consequently, the trial court's inference that Appellant was unable to drive safely due to alcohol consumption was deemed appropriate, rendering Appellant's sufficiency argument without merit.
In his second claim, Appellant contends that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, arguing that the trial court improperly relied on Sergeant Colombo’s testimony due to the absence of field sobriety tests and direct observations of Appellant while driving. However, the standard of review for weight of the evidence claims asserts that while evidence may be sufficient to support a verdict, a new trial may be warranted if the evidence overwhelmingly favors acquittal. An appellate court does not reassess evidence but checks for abuse of discretion by the trial court.
The trial court concluded that the evidence supported the guilty verdict, stating that the Commonwealth’s evidence was consistent and not vague or contradictory. Key evidence included Sergeant Colombo's observations of Appellant displaying signs of intoxication, such as the smell of alcohol, red glassy eyes, and Appellant's admission to drinking earlier that day. Despite the lack of traditional sobriety tests, the trial court found the officer's testimony credible. Appellant did not demonstrate any abuse of discretion by the trial court, leading to the affirmation of the judgment of sentence.
