from the Judgment of Sentence September 13, 2016 In the Court
of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s):
BEFORE: SHOGAN and MOULTON, JJ., and STEVENS, P.J.E.
Sherry Lynn Wise, appeals from the judgment of sentence of
two years of probation, payment of costs and fines, plus 100
hours of community service imposed on September 13, 2016,
following her conviction by a jury that same day of Fleeing
or Attempting to Elude a Police Officer, 75 Pa.C.S. §
3733. We affirm.
trial court summarized the facts as follows:
[Appellee, t]he Commonwealth[, ] presented one witness,
Officer Holly Rowland ("Officer Rowland") of the
Southwestern Regional Police Department. Officer Rowland was
on duty on September 24, 2015. At approximately 6:15 p.m.
that day, Officer Rowland was in the area of York Road and
Jacobs Mill Road in York County. She was in this area due to
a minor vehicle accident, and she was standing on the Jacob
Mill side of the road (by the stop sign) talking to witnesses
and determining whether there were injuries.
At that time of day, it was still sunny, and the lights on
Officer Rowland's marked patrol unit vehicle were on.
While she was talking to witnesses, Officer Rowland observed
"a green Mustang with a convertible top that was down
approach ... the intersection" from the direction of
Jacobs Mill Road. She observed that "the vehicle was
coming up to make a right-hand turn on York Road."
Officer Rowland testified that she "was able to make
contact with the driver of the Green Mustang, who she did
identify as the Appellant."
Officer Rowland recognized the Appellant as the driver of the
vehicle that day. Officer Rowland testified that she knew
Appellant did not have a valid driver's license due to
previous dealings with the Appellant. Upon seeing the
vehicle, Officer Rowland "approached the vehicle and ...
said to the Appellant, Sherry, what's going on? And the
Appellant said, what do you mean? And Officer Rowland said,
you don't have a driver's license, I'm going to
need you to pull over, please." This interaction between
Officer Rowland and Appellant had occurred at the
intersection while Appellant sat in the driver seat and
Officer Rowland spoke standing just outside of the passenger
side of the car. Officer Rowland was in full uniform at that
time, including a vest, full duty belt, badge, and patches on
After instructing the Appellant to pull over, Officer Rowland
"pointed in the direction that Officer Rowland wanted
Appellant to . . . turn onto York Road, and Officer Rowland
pointed out that there is a driveway that Appellant could
pull into safely and wait for Officer Rowland to come over to
speak with her." In response to these instructions,
Appellant "asked, where, and Officer Rowland again
motioned to the Appellant . . . in the direction that Officer
Rowland wanted her to travel, and Officer Rowland again
stated, the driveway shoulder area located on York Road. To
motion to the Appellant, Officer Rowland "[u]sed her
arms as a signal for the Appellant to follow that
direction." Importantly, Officer Rowland had
specifically told [Appellant] to pull over. According to
Officer Rowland's testimony, the Appellant did not ask
any further questions, or express any other concern or reason
about why Appellant could not stop at that time.
After the instructions, Appellant turned right down York Road
and drove away instead of stopping in the area that Officer
Rowland instructed her to. In fact, according to Officer
Rowland's testimony, after Appellant pulled out into the
intersection, Appellant "accelerated at a very fast
speed out of the area" and did not stop at any point,
which was not following the directions Officer Rowland had
given. In addition, there was more than one place along the
roadway that Appellant was driving near the officer that
Appellant could have pulled over but did not do so. At the
time, Officer Rowland was not able to pursue the Appellant
since the officer was still on the scene of the car accident
and because the officer needed to stay at the scene of the
car accident for the tow companies to arrive. The Appellant
did not come back to Officer Rowland or contact the police
department that evening.
In response to Appellant not pulling over and driving away,
Officer Rowland "radioed to . . . York Dispatch to let
them know that this vehicle had left the scene and to notify
future [sic] departments." Officer Rowland had
"noted to . . . York County Dispatch to note that the
vehicle had fled the scene."
Trial Court Opinion, 12/2/16, at 2-6 (footnotes omitted).
noted, on September 13, 2016, a jury convicted Appellant of
fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, the court
convicted her of driving without a license, and she was
sentenced as described supra. Appellant filed a
timely post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied on
September 22, 2016. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal
on October 11, 2016, and both Appellant and the trial court
complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
raises the following two issues on appeal:
1. Whether the trial court erred in failing to present a
complete jury instruction on the elements of the offense of
Fleeing or Attempting to Elude a Police Officer when the
trial court denied Appellant's request to include the
language "pursuing police officer" in the jury
2. Whether the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient
evidence in order to convict Appellant beyond a reasonable
doubt because the Commonwealth failed to prove the Appellant
was fleeing or attempting to elude a pursuing police officer?
Appellant's Brief at 5.
reviewing a jury charge, we determine "whether the trial
court committed a clear abuse of discretion or an error of
law which controlled the outcome of the case."
Commonwealth v. Brown, 911 A.2d 576, 582-583 (Pa.
Super. 2006). We must view the charge as a whole; the trial
court is free to use its own form of expression in creating
the charge. Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 766 A.2d 874,
878 (Pa. Super. 2001). "[Our] key inquiry is whether the
instruction on a particular issue adequately, accurately and
clearly presents the law to the jury, and is sufficient to
guide the jury in its deliberations." Id.
[i]t is well-settled that "the trial court has wide
discretion in fashioning jury instructions. The trial court
is not required to give every charge that is requested by the
parties[, ] and its refusal to give a requested charge does
not require reversal unless the appellant was prejudiced by
Commonwealth v. Scott, 73 A.3d 599, 602 (Pa. Super.
2013) (quoting Brown, 911 A.2d at 583).
jury was charged, in relevant part, as follows:
[Appellant] has been charged with the offense of fleeing or
attempting to elude a police officer. To find [Appellant]
guilty of this offense, you must find the following elements