Commonwealth v. Manera
827 A.2d 482, 2003 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1339, 2003 Pa. Super. 215 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The common law defense of justification is available for all statutory offenses, including strict liability traffic offenses, unless the legislature has expressed a clear and deliberate intent to preclude it. Merely increasing the penalty for an offense does not, by itself, signify such legislative intent.
Facts:
- Marie Ann Manera's driver's license was suspended for five years effective November 30, 1996, due to her status as a habitual offender following a DUI conviction.
- On August 2, 2001, while her license was still suspended, Manera was at her home caring for her one-year-old and three-year-old grandchildren.
- Manera began to feel ill due to a heart arrhythmia and realized she had left her necessary medication at her daughter's house.
- She became concerned that her young grandchildren might find and ingest the medication left at the other house.
- After unsuccessfully attempting to contact her daughters and her mother to retrieve the medication for her, Manera felt she had no other choice.
- Manera drove a vehicle that was on her property, which was awaiting an insurance appraisal, toward her daughter's house to get her medicine.
- A police officer stopped Manera's vehicle because it had an expired inspection sticker.
- During the stop, the officer discovered that Manera was driving with a suspended license when she could not produce a valid one.
Procedural Posture:
- A District Justice found Marie Ann Manera guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under a DUI-related suspension.
- Manera appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County for a trial de novo.
- The trial court found that Manera's conduct factually met the requirements for the justification defense but held as a matter of law that the defense was unavailable for this specific charge.
- Based on its legal conclusion, the trial court convicted Manera and imposed a mandatory sentence of 90 days imprisonment and a $1,000 fine.
- Manera, as Appellant, appealed the judgment of sentence to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the statutory defense of justification available for a charge of operating a motor vehicle while under a DUI-related license suspension, in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(b)?
Opinions:
Majority - Lally-Green, J.
Yes. The statutory defense of justification is available for a charge of operating a motor vehicle while under a DUI-related license suspension. The Crimes Code provides that justification is a defense in 'any prosecution,' making it generally applicable to all offenses unless there is clear legislative intent to the contrary. The trial court erred in reasoning that the legislature's decision to increase penalties for this offense demonstrated an implicit intent to preclude the defense. This court found no clear connection between increased penalties and the elimination of a fundamental defense, noting that the legislature could have explicitly removed the defense when it amended the statute but chose not to. Absent a clear legislative statement abrogating the defense, it remains available for defendants to assert.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the default availability of the justification, or necessity, defense across the spectrum of criminal and quasi-criminal offenses in Pennsylvania. It establishes a high bar for finding legislative intent to abrogate such fundamental common law defenses, requiring an explicit statement rather than mere implication from other statutory changes like penalty enhancements. The ruling ensures that even in cases involving strict liability offenses with mandatory sentences, courts must still consider whether a defendant's conduct was necessary to prevent a greater harm, preserving an essential element of fairness in the justice system.
