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.

Commonwealth v. Morsching

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

March 6, 2014

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
CHAD J. MORSCHING Appellant

NON-PRESIDENTIAL DECISION

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered January 25, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at No: CP-39-CR-2287-2012

BEFORE: ALLEN, STABILE, AND STRASSBURGER, [*] JJ.

STABILE, J.

Appellant, Chad J. Morsching, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered by Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County on January 25, 2013 following a bench trial where the trial court found Morsching guilty of two counts of driving under the influence. On appeal, Morsching raises several challenges to the weight of the evidence. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on these claims, we affirm.

We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case. At any rate, for a detailed recitation of the facts and procedural history of this case, we direct the reader to the trial court's memorandum opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/31/13, at 1-3.

On appeal, Morsching raises the following issues for our review:

Did the trial court err by failing to find that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence for the following reasons:
A. [Morsching] testified that he was not driving the motor vehicle at the time of the incident.
B. The Commonwealth failed to save videos taken by traffic cameras which could have shown that [Morsching] did not get into the driver['s] seat at the B&B Piano Bar.
C. The street on which the vehicle occupied by [Morsching] was stopped was too narrow for the police vehicle to pass[, ] as testified by the officers.
D.The witnesses who testified to the result of the blood alcohol and drug tests were not the technicians who actually perform[ed] the tests. Their testimony should not have been accorded much weight because there was no corroborating evidence that the vehicle occupied by [Morsching] was being driven in an erratic or unsafe manner.

Appellant's Brief at 5.

With our standard of review in mind, [1] after considering the record, the parties' briefs, the trial court's opinion, and the applicable law, we are satisfied the court adequately addressed in its opinion the issues Morsching raised on appeal, and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Morsching's weight of the evidence challenges. Accordingly, we adopt the opinion of the Honorable James T. Anthony, entered May 31, 2013 as our own. In any future filings with this or any ...


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.