Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

JOHN WILLIAM RICH v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (05/02/83)

decided: May 2, 1983.

JOHN WILLIAM RICH, JR., APPELLANT
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of the 26th Judicial District, Columbia County Branch in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. John W. Rich, Jr., No. 68 of 1981.

COUNSEL

Martin J. Cerullo, Frumkin & Manta, P.C., for appellant.

Elwood R. Harding, Jr., Assistant District Attorney of Columbia County, for appellee.

Judges Blatt, MacPhail and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.

Author: Blatt

[ 74 Pa. Commw. Page 77]

John W. Rich, Jr. (appellant) appeals here*fn1 from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of the 26th Judicial District Columbia County Branch wherein he was adjudged guilty of driving a vehicle at a rate of 75 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone, in violation of Section 3362(a) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. ยง 3362(a).

The evidence presented to the trial court includes the testimony of a state policeman, Trooper Thomas Reddon, who testified that on November 16, 1980, at 11:25 A.M., he observed a vehicle being operated by the appellant. After using his radar gun, which registered that the vehicle was traveling at 75 miles per hour, he pulled the vehicle over and issued a citation to the driver. Trooper Reddon testified that he had

[ 74 Pa. Commw. Page 78]

    been trained in the use of the radar gun, that his gun had been certified for accuracy by an authorized testing station on November 6, 1980, and that, a few minutes before he stopped the appellant, he had subjected the gun to another type of accuracy test which indicated that it was in proper working order.

The testimony of the appellant indicates that, at the time in question, he was on his way to meet someone on business, he was lost, and that he did not then and does not know now how fast he was driving. On cross-examination, when questioned by the assistant district attorney, the appellant testified as follows:

Q: Do you deny that you were exceeding the speed limit?

A: I don't think I am denying that, no.

Q: So that you don't deny that you were ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.