Commonwealth v. Segida’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

47 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) General impairment.- ... (2) An individual may not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol such that the alcohol concentration in the individual's blood or breath is at least 0.08% but less than 0.10% within two hours after the individual has driven, operated or been in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 21 - Commonwealth v. Eichler · Commonwealth v. Gooseby-Byrd

2. “[T]he circumstantial evidence that [a]ppellee drove while he was incapable of driving safely due to ingestion of alcohol was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt his violation of subsection 3802(a)(1). Appellee admitted that he had been drinking at a local club, and that he was driving himself and his brother home when he lost control of his vehicle. The investigating officer discovered [a]ppellee's vehicle "almost over the hillside at the top ... into some brush," having rotated 180 degrees before coming to a halt off the road. When the officer arrived on the scene, [a]ppellee and his brother were out of the vehicle, "on the street right near the vehicle." The officer "smell[ed] a strong odor of alcohol coming from [appellee's] person and his breath." The officer then administered three field sobriety tests, and based on the results thereof, he concluded that [a]ppellee was incapable of safely driving due to alcohol consumption. After arresting [a]ppellee, the officer transported him to McKeesport Hospital for a blood alcohol test, which revealed that [a]ppellee had a very high blood alcohol content: 0.326 percent. While the officer acknowledged that he had not observed the accident and did not know exactly what time it had occurred, he opined that it was "doubtful" that the accident had occurred two or three hours or even ten minutes prior to his arrival on the scene "due to traffic on the road." The undisputed evidence of [a]ppellee's strikingly high blood alc”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Starry · 2013 Pa. Super. 147 - Commonwealth v. Teems

3. “Section 3802(a)(1), like its predecessor [DUI statute], is a general provision and provides no specific' restraint upon the Commonwealth in the manner in which it may prove that an accused operated a vehicle under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered him incapable of safe driving.... The types-of evidence that the Commonwealth may proffer in a subsection 3802(a)(1) prosecution include but are not limited to, the following: the offender’s actions and behavior, including manner of driving and ability to pass field sobriety tests; demeanor, including, toward the investigating officer; physical appearance, particularly bloodshot eyes and other physical signs of intoxication; odor , of alcohol, and slurred speech. Blood .alcohol level may be added to this list, although it is not necessary and the. two hour time limit [present in other subsections in section 3802] for measuring blood alcohol level does not apply. ‘ Blood alcohol level is admissible in a subsection 3801(a)(1) case only insofar as it is relevant to and probative of the accused’s ability to drive safely at the time he or she was driving. The weight to be assigned these various types of evidence presents a question for the fact-finder, who may rely on his or her experience, common sense, and/or expert testimony. ■ Regardless of the type of evidence that the •Commonwealth proffers to support its case, the focus of subsection 3802(a)(1) remains on the inability of the individual to drive safely due to con”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 21 - Commonwealth v. Eichler · 2013 Pa. Super. 147 - Commonwealth v. Teems