J-S06042-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CHRISTOPHER A. CORNELIUS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 861 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 24, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-06-CR-0003328-2019

BEFORE: STABILE, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: MARCH 15, 2023

Appellant Christopher A. Cornelius appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County following his 

conviction by a jury on two counts of homicide by vehicle, one count of 

aggravated assault by vehicle, two counts of involuntary manslaughter, three 

counts of recklessly endangering another person, one count of possession of 

drug paraphernalia, two counts of driving while under the influence of a 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S06042-23

- 2 -

controlled substance (“DUI”),

1 and various summary traffic offenses.2

 After a 

careful review, we affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: After his arrest

in connection with a fatal automobile accident, Appellant, who was 

represented by counsel, proceeded to a jury trial. Donelle Truglia testified 

that, in June of 2019, she, her ex-husband, and her daughter (collectively “the 

Truglias”), all of whom lived in Kentucky, were visiting her mother in 

Bloomfield, New Jersey, when her vehicle was repossessed. N.T., 4/11/22, at 

119. Ms. Truglia asked Appellant, who was also a Kentucky resident, to pick 

them up in New Jersey and drive them back to Kentucky. Id. 

On June 28, 2019, Appellant arrived at Ms. Truglia’s mother’s home, 

and after Appellant took a shower, the Truglias departed Bloomfield at 10:00 

p.m. in Appellant’s vehicle with Appellant at the wheel. Id. at 121. Ms. Truglia 

testified “the car ride was decent” while they were traveling west on I-78 until 

Appellant began “swerving in and out of traffic driving at high speed.” Id. Ms. 

____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3732(a), 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3732.1(a), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2504(a), 

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705, 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32), and 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 

3802(d)(1)(ii)-(iii), respectively.

2 Specifically, Appellant was convicted of following too closely, driving at safe 

speed, careless driving, careless driving-unintentional death and serious 

bodily injury, and reckless driving. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3310(a), 3361, 

3714(a)-(c), and 3736(a). We note Appellant was acquitted on the charges 

of homicide by vehicle while DUI, aggravated assault by vehicle while DUI, 

DUI-controlled substance-impaired ability, exceeding maximum speed limit by 

45 mph, and failing to use safety belt. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3735(a), 

3735.1(a), 3802(d)(2), 3362, and 4581.
J-S06042-23

- 3 -

Truglia testified she was “nervous” and asked Appellant to “slow down; stop 

doing that.” Id. Ms. Truglia eventually dozed off, but she awoke when 

Appellant slammed the vehicle’s brakes to avoid hitting the rear of the car 

traveling in front of them. Id. at 122. Ms. Truglia indicated she “had enough” 

and was “too scared to stay in the car with him.” Id. Accordingly, Ms. Truglia 

demanded Appellant stop the vehicle at the first rest stop when they entered 

Pennsylvania from New Jersey. Id. at 123. 

Ms. Truglia told Appellant she refused to drive with him to Kentucky 

unless he allowed her to drive. Id. After approximately forty-five minutes, 

at 1:00 a.m. on June 29, 2019, Appellant drove away leaving the Truglias in

the rest stop parking lot. Id. at 125. Ms. Truglia called a taxi service, and the 

family spent the night at a hotel near Allentown, Pennsylvania. Id. at 126. 

Ms. Truglia testified she never heard from Appellant again; however, while 

they were sleeping at the hotel, Appellant called her ex-husband’s cell number

and left a voicemail message at around 3:30 a.m. or 4:00 a.m. Id. at 127. 

In the message, Appellant reported he “got into a bad car accident.” Id. 

After hearing the voicemail message at 8:00 a.m. on June 29, 2019, Ms. 

Truglia called the police to inquire about the accident, as well as Appellant’s 

condition. Id. at 128. In response, state troopers came to the hotel and 

interviewed Ms. Truglia, who gave the troopers a statement consistent with 

her trial testimony. Id. at 128-30. 
J-S06042-23

- 4 -

Meanwhile, at some point after leaving the Truglias at the rest stop, 

Appellant reversed his westward course and began traveling in the eastbound 

lane of I-78. Lisa Winter testified that, at approximately 2:30 a.m. on June 

29, 2019, she, her husband, and her son departed from their home in 

Schuylkill County and began traveling in their hardtop Jeep Wrangler towards 

Wildwood Crest, New Jersey. Id. at 138. Mr. Winter was driving with Mrs. 

Winter in the front passenger seat and their son in the back seat. Id. The 

Winters traveled on Route 61 south and took the exit onto I-78 east towards 

Allentown. Id. at 139-40. Mrs. Winter testified there were no adverse weather 

conditions, and traffic was light on I-78 east. Id. at 140.

Mrs. Winter testified that, as the family traveled in the right lane 

between exits 40 and 45, bright lights appeared from behind in the driver’s 

side-view and rearview mirrors. Id. at 139-40. She indicated the lights came 

upon their Jeep “real fast” and then their Jeep was suddenly hit. Id. at 140-

42. Mrs. Winter testified “the force of the impact” lifted their Jeep off the 

ground, onto the guide rails, and over a steep embankment. Id. at 140-41.

The Jeep “free-fell down to a ledge and went into a hard roll.” Id. at 140. 

Mrs. Winter testified the following occurred:

It just became very loud. Glass was ricocheting all over the 

place. I remember my head being bashed around. You could hear 

churning of metal. The coils were bouncing on the Jeep. And 

everything in the [Jeep] was silent except for me. I was 

screaming, “God, please stop the roll; God, please stop the roll.” 

And I—at one point, it just seemed like it was going on forever 

like a nightmare that ever ends. 
J-S06042-23

- 5 -

Id. at 142. 

Mrs. Winter never lost consciousness. Id. When the vehicle stopped 

rolling, it came to rest in shallow water. Id. Mrs. Winter “turned to the side 

to look for [her] husband on the driver’s side, and he wasn’t there.” Id. Mrs. 

Winter was unable to open the passenger side door, so she crawled onto the 

driver’s side. Id. She began calling for help while yelling for her husband and

son. Id. at 144-45. Suddenly, she saw two police officers with flashlights 

walking down the embankment towards her, and she was removed from the 

scene suffering from a broken neck, concussion, deep cuts, and shock.3 Id. at 

145-46. At trial, she denied seeing a tractor trailer in the area prior to the 

crash, and she testified her husband did not make any lane changes. Id. at 

141. 

Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Dominick Marino testified that, after 

receiving a dispatch, he and his partner, Trooper Robert Markowski, arrived 

at the accident scene in Greenwich Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania, on 

June 29, 2019, at approximately 3:24 a.m. Id. at 153. He testified that, at 

this location, I-78 is a highway with two lanes dedicated for traveling east and 

two lanes dedicated for traveling west. Id. at 154. The eastbound and 

____________________________________________

3 The parties stipulated that, if called to testify, Joseph Stirparo, M.D., would 

testify he is the chief of trauma surgical critical care and acute surgery care 

at the Lehigh Valley Health Network, and on June 29, 2019, at 5:00 a.m., Mrs. 

Winter arrived at the Lehigh Valley Hospital emergency room following a motor 

vehicle crash. Id. at 150. Mrs. Winter suffered fractures to her sixth and 

seventh cervical vertebra. Id. 
J-S06042-23

- 6 -

westbound lanes are separated by a concrete median barrier. Id. The 

accident occurred in a non-active construction zone where the speed limit was 

posted at either 50 or 55 mph. Id. He indicated there were no adverse weather 

conditions, and the road was straight with no “sight-line issues.” Id. at 155. 

Upon arrival at the accident scene, Trooper Marino observed Appellant’s 

vehicle sitting in a “final resting” position by the “concrete barrier separating 

east and west traffic, faced in a northeastern direction.” Id. at 154. Appellant 

was standing near the guide rail, and he “flagged down” the police. Id. at 155. 

Appellant pointed down towards the embankment and yelled “there’s someone 

down there or there’s a car down there.” Id. at 157. 

The trooper did “a quick triage of [Appellant], asking him if he was

injured.” Id. Appellant did not complain of any injuries. Id. at 159. The 

troopers then used their flashlights to look down the steep embankment and 

heard Mrs. Winter screaming for help. Id. at 158. They observed the crashed 

Jeep sitting in the stream. Id. at 159. With some difficulty, the troopers 

traversed down the steep embankment, and they moved Mrs. Winter, who 

was semi-ambulatory, approximately 25 yards from the Jeep. Id. at 161. 

Alerting the troopers that her husband and son were in the Jeep, the 

troopers began looking for them. Id. The troopers found Mr. Winter and the

couple’s son not too far on the northern side of where the Jeep had come to 

its final resting place. Id. at 163. The troopers discovered no signs of life, and 

it was clear they were deceased. Id. 
J-S06042-23

- 7 -

Trooper Marino testified the ambulance arrived soon thereafter, and 

Mrs. Winter was removed from the scene. Id. at 164. Meanwhile, the troopers

went back up the embankment and asked Appellant what had happened. Id. 

at 165. Trooper Marino testified as follows: 

At first, [Appellant] was having trouble recalling what happened 

prior to the crash and during the crash. But he indicated about a 

truck, a tractor trailer, the trailer unit of the tractor trailer, he said 

that’s what he remembered, the last thing that he remembered 

was seeing that and trying to swerve away from that. 

Id. 

Trooper Marino noted there was no tractor trailer stopped at the scene, 

and no tractor trailer driver called in to report the accident. Id. at 166. 

Trooper Marino did not perform a field sobriety test on Appellant; however, 

he asked Appellant to take a breathalyzer after he was in the ambulance. Id. 

at 170. The breathalyzer was negative for alcohol. Id. 

Trooper Markowski testified consistently with Trooper Marino as to his 

observations at the crash scene. N.T., 4/12/22, at 186-208. He noted 

Appellant was “very sporadic” in his speaking. Id. at 196. He did not observe 

any drug paraphernalia at the scene or detect an odor of alcohol from 

Appellant. Id. at 198. He did not witness Appellant take any drugs at the 

scene. Id. He did not observe any adverse weather conditions. Id. at 202. 

He noted that, based on the seriousness of the crash, he called for the State 

Police’s accident reconstruction unit to respond. Id. at 203. 
J-S06042-23

- 8 -

Samuel Yerkes, who is an ambulance driver and EMT, testified he 

responded to the crash scene at approximately 4:30 a.m. N.T., 4/11/22, at 

175. He observed Appellant’s vehicle had damage to the front end. Id. He 

indicated he asked Appellant what happened, and Appellant pointed to “skid 

marks that were going off into the guardrail.” Id. at 176. Mr. Yerkes looked 

down the embankment and saw the Jeep. Id. 

Mr. Yerkes testified he and a paramedic attended to Appellant, who 

reported “he was driving from out of state all night, wasn’t really sure if he 

fell asleep or not and then,...he had tried to avoid a collision but [he] wasn’t 

really sure how it exactly happened.” Id. at 178. Mr. Yerkes testified 

Appellant was given an IV with “normal saline” at the scene; however, he 

denied Appellant was given “methamphetamine or amphetamine drugs.” Id. 

at 180. 

Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Justin Humanick, who was a member 

of the forensic services unit, testified he responded to the crash scene at 

approximately 5:30 a.m. when the sun was starting to rise. N.T., 4/12/22, at

214. He took several pictures of the scene, including of the major front-end 

damage to Appellant’s vehicle, the tire marks on the roadway, and the damage 

to the guide rail on the right berm. Id. at 214-15, 220. His pictures revealed 

the front end of Appellant’s vehicle had “a transfer on the hood of the letter 

G-O-O-D in the same font as the Goodyear Wrangler [spare] tire on the rear 
J-S06042-23

- 9 -

of the [Winters’] Jeep.” Id. at 221. He also took pictures of the steep 

embankment and the Winters’ severely damaged Jeep. Id. 

Moreover, Trooper Humanick testified that he noticed, in plain view, two 

syringes in the dash area of Appellant’s vehicle. Id. at 222. Accordingly, he 

secured and executed a search warrant on Appellant’s vehicle after it was 

towed to the Hamburg police barracks impound lot. Id. In addition to seizing 

the two syringes from the dash area, Trooper Humanick discovered a syringe 

underneath the driver’s side seat, as well as rolling papers and a digital scale 

in the center console. Id. He also found a package of unopened syringes in 

the rear seat, as well as two elastic bands and a Sharps container with nine 

syringes in the trunk. Id. at 224, 228. 

Mikayla Lentz, a registered nurse at the Lehigh Valley Hospital, testified 

she drew blood from Appellant at the emergency room at 5:17 a.m. on June 

29, 2019. Id. at 235-37. 

The parties stipulated that Appellant’s “blood sample was tested by 

Forensic Toxicologist Michael Lamb and found to contain 370 nanograms per 

milliliter of methamphetamine and 72 nanograms per milliliter of 

amphetamine.” Id. at 244. 

Pennsylvania State Police Corporal Anthony Garipoli, a member of the 

vice narcotics unit, was offered by the Commonwealth as an expert in 

controlled substances. Id. at 249. Corporal Garipoli testified he examined the 

two syringes seized from Appellant’s vehicle’s dash, as well as the one syringe 
J-S06042-23

- 10 -

seized from underneath the driver’s seat. Id. at 251. He “observed dried 

blood” on the needle portion of two of the three syringes. Id. 

He testified to a reasonable degree of professional certainty that people 

use digital scales to weigh drugs, needles to inject methamphetamine when it 

is in liquid form, and elastic bands to “pump the veins up” to inject the needle 

into a vein. Id. at 252. He testified it is not uncommon for methamphetamine 

users to buy the amount they are going to use, so there are no “remnants of 

the actual drug” on their person. Id. at 254. He acknowledged it was 

uncommon for a user of illegal drugs to carry a Sharps container to dispose of 

their needles. Id. at 257. 

Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Alyssa Becker testified she conducted 

a post-crash investigation of Appellant’s vehicle and the Winters’ Jeep. She 

opined that, prior to the crash, both vehicles would have passed state 

inspection. Id. at 271. She observed no defects in either vehicle’s brakes or 

tires. Id. 

Pennsylvania State Police Corporal Timothy Cutshaw, who is a member 

of the accident reconstruction unit, arrived on the scene at 5:15 a.m. on June 

29, 2019. He opined to a reasonable degree of scientific and professional 

certainty as follows regarding the cause of the instant crash:

[T]he crash occurred as a 2012 Chevy Captiva operated by 

[Appellant]...was traveling east on Interstate 78 in the right lane. 

[Appellant] was unable to avoid impacting a 2018 Jeep Wrangler 

due to the high rate of speed of his vehicle. The 2012 Chevy 

Captiva struck the 2018 Jeep Wrangler in an offset rear-end 

collision that was traveling east on Interstate 78 in the right lane.
J-S06042-23

- 11 -

This impact forced the 2018 Jeep Wrangler off the roadway 

striking the right-side guide rail and continuing over the guide rail. 

The 2018 Jeep Wrangler continued down a steep embankment 

rolling multiple times, ejecting the driver and rear-seat passenger. 

The front-seat passenger remained in the vehicle where it 

came to rest in a stream. The 2012 Chevy Captiva continued to 

an uncontrolled rest on the left shoulder. The two occupants that 

were ejected [from the Jeep Wranger]...were killed as a result of 

the crash. The front-seat passenger, [Mrs.] Winter, sustained 

major injuries from the crash. 

***

The speed for the 2012 Chevy Captiva was determined from 

the Bosch Crash Data Retrieval Report to be 98 miles per hour, 98 

miles per hour, 99 miles per hour, 99 miles per hour, and 95 miles 

per hour from 2 and a half seconds to .5 seconds before the 

crash—or before the impact with the 2018 Jeep Wrangler. It was 

taken in half-second intervals. The report was validated through 

ignitions cycles and physical evidence at the scene. 

***

The speed for the 2018 Jeep Wrangler was determined from 

the Bosch Crash Data Retrieval Report to be 55 miles per hour at 

the time of impact with the 2012 Chevy Captiva. Utilizing an inline momentum equation for that vehicle, I actually came up with 

57 miles per hour in math not using the Bosch Crash Data 

Retrieval Report.

***

The speeds reported in the Jeep report that I think are 

accurate are pretty consistent with highway speeds between 65 

and 55 miles per hour. There’s nothing suddenly changing until 

after the impact occurs. The impact occurs and, obviously, the 

vehicle starts—goes hard right. And that’s based upon the impact 

with the Captiva....The offset is what caused the [Jeep] to go to 

the right. So that impact is what caused that. The offset as the 

vehicle approaches, to me, looks like both vehicles were in the 

right lane, the Captiva is coming up on the Jeep fast and decides, 

oh, I got to get over to the left lane. And then that’s when the 

impact occurs.

Id. at 286-88, 322-23. 
J-S06042-23

- 12 -

He noted he saw no evidence a third vehicle was involved in the crash. 

Id. at 291, 322. Specifically, he saw no evidence Appellant’s vehicle hit any 

vehicle other than the Winters’ Jeep. Id. at 292. Further, based on the impact 

of the vehicles and evidence at the scene, Corporal Cutshaw opined the 

evidence did not suggest a tractor trailer was in the left lane and Appellant 

made a quick turn to the right lane to avoid it, thus hitting the Winters’ Jeep. 

Id. at 365. He also noted he saw no evidence the Winters’ Jeep lost control 

or made a quick lane change prior to the crash. Id. at 292, 322. He opined 

the Winters’ Jeep was traveling “straight” when Appellant’s vehicle hit it in an 

offset position from behind “as if performing a lane change.” Id. at 327. 

Moreover, he saw no physical evidence that Appellant hit the brakes of his 

vehicle any earlier than a half-second before hitting the Winters’ Jeep. Id. at 

293. He saw no evidence Mr. Winter suddenly hit the brakes of the Jeep before 

Appellant hit him from behind. Id. at 300, 321. He specifically testified the 

tire marks he observed were “postimpact tire marks.” Id.

Additionally, Corporal Cutshaw testified he examined both vehicles and

found no mechanical issues, which may have led to the crash. Id. at 294. He 

also examined the roadway, which was straight, and found no defects. Id. at 

297. He observed no evidence that adverse weather conditions contributed 

to the accident. Id. 

Michael Coyer, Ph.D., who was offered by the Commonwealth as an 

expert in forensic toxicology and pharmacology, testified to a reasonable 
J-S06042-23

- 13 -

degree of scientific certainty that Appellant was impaired by 

methamphetamine at the time of the crash. Id. at 379, 398. He explained

the amphetamine in Appellant’s blood resulted from Appellant’s body 

metabolizing methamphetamine. Id. at 382. He explained that 370 

nanograms per millimeter of methamphetamine, which was the amount found 

in Appellant’s blood after the accident, is “a high number” resulting in 

“impairment to a normal state.” Id. at 382-83. He noted methamphetamine, 

which is a Schedule II controlled substance, has “psychoactive effects,” leads 

to “erratic driving,” and is addictive. Id. at 384. He testified it is a “central 

nervous system simulant,” which raises a person’s heart rate, affects vision, 

and has euphoric effects. Id. at 385. He explained that a person gets “100 

percent efficiency of the drug when [it is] injected.” Id. at 386. He opined 

that, given the high amount of amphetamine in Appellant’s blood, Appellant 

“multiple dosed” with the methamphetamine prior to the accident. Id. at 394-

96. He opined, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that Appellant’s 

use of methamphetamine was a direct and substantial factor in causing the 

crash. Id. at 398. 

The parties stipulated that, if called to testify, Deputy Coroner Sarah 

Shivers would testify she went to the accident scene at 4:44 a.m. on July 29, 

2019, and she pronounced Mr. Winter and his son dead. N.T., 4/13/22, at 

425. 
J-S06042-23

- 14 -

Supriya Kuruvilla, M.D., who is the director of the division of autopsy 

and forensic pathology at the Reading Hospital, testified he performed 

autopsies on Mr. Winter and his son. He opined, to a reasonable degree of 

medical certainty, that the cause of death for both men was massive bluntforce trauma from a motor vehicle accident. Id. at 431-32. He collected tissue 

samples from Mr. Winter, who was the driver of the Jeep. Id. at 434. Aside 

from the presence of caffeine, Mr. Winter’s toxicology was negative for any 

drugs or alcohol. Id. 

After the Commonwealth rested, the defense called a single witness, 

Donald Phillips, an engineer who specializes in accident reconstruction and 

event data recorder extraction analysis. He acknowledged the right front of 

Appellant’s vehicle impacted the rear left of the Winters’ Jeep. Id. at 474. He 

also acknowledged that Appellant’s vehicle was traveling between 95 mph and 

98 mph in the seconds before the crash. Id. at 483. However, based upon 

his analysis of the evidence from the crash scene, as well as the data recorder, 

he testified it was impossible to preclude the possibility that the Winters’ Jeep 

was changing lanes, aggressively braking, or entering the road from the 

shoulder when Appellant’s vehicle hit it. Id. at 471, 474, 485. He testified 

there was no way of knowing “what the Jeep was doing in the seconds leading 

up to the crash.” Id. at 481. 

On cross-examination, he admitted high speeds can be the sole 

proximate cause in crashes. Id. at 486. He admitted a driving speed of 99 
J-S06042-23

- 15 -

mph is not a safe speed for a roadway posted at 50 mph. Id. at 489. He also 

admitted that, in the instant case, he observed no defects in the road where 

the crash occurred, and there was no evidence of anything obstructing a 

driver’s line of sight in that area. Id. at 490. 

At the conclusion of all evidence, the jury convicted Appellant of the 

offenses indicated supra. Following a sentencing hearing, on May 24, 2022,

the trial court sentenced Appellant to, inter alia, an aggregate of 11.25 years 

to 22.5 years in prison. This timely appeal followed, and all Pa.R.A.P. 1925 

requirements have been met.

On appeal, Appellant presents the following issue in his “Statement of 

Questions Involved” (verbatim):

A. Was insufficient evidence presented to establish the required 

mens rea of recklessness or gross negligence as required to 

sustain Appellant’s convictions of Aggravated Assault by 

Vehicle 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3721.1, Homicide by Vehicle, 75 

Pa.C.S.A. § 3732?

Appellant’s Brief at 5 (suggested answer omitted).

Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain his 

convictions for aggravated assault by vehicle and homicide by vehicle.4

Specifically, Appellant avers that “[a]n essential element of both is that the 

predicate offenses required must be committed in a reckless and/or grossly 

negligent fashion.” Appellant’s Brief at 12. Appellant avers the evidence 

____________________________________________

4 Appellant presents no challenge to his remaining convictions.
J-S06042-23

- 16 -

reveals that, at most, he was “simply negligent,” and, thus, the 

Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proving the necessary mens rea

required for aggravated assault by vehicle and homicide by vehicle. Id.

Initially, in reviewing Appellant’s sufficiency claim, we are mindful of the 

following well established legal precepts:

This Court’s standard of review when considering a challenge to the 

sufficiency of the evidence requires us to look at the evidence in a light most 

favorable to the verdict winner and determine whether the evidence 

presented, actual and/or circumstantial, was sufficient to enable a fact-finder

to find every element of the crime charged, beyond a reasonable doubt. See 

Commonwealth v. O'Brien, 939 A.2d 912 (Pa.Super. 2007).

In applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence 

and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition, we 

note that the facts and the circumstances established by the 

Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. 

Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the 

fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that 

as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the 

combined circumstances.

Id. at 913–914 (quotation omitted). The finder of fact is free to believe all, 

some, or none of the evidence presented and is free to determine the 

credibility of the witnesses. Commonwealth v. Dailey, 828 A.2d 356 

(Pa.Super. 2003).

Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault by vehicle under 75 

Pa.C.S.A. § 3732.1, which relevantly provides as follows:
J-S06042-23

- 17 -

(a) Offense.--Any person who recklessly or with gross 

negligence causes serious bodily injury to another person while 

engaged in the violation of any law of this Commonwealth or 

municipal ordinance applying to the operation or use of a vehicle 

or to the regulation of traffic, except section 3802 (relating to 

driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance), is 

guilty of aggravated assault by vehicle, a felony of the third degree 

when the violation is the cause of the injury.

75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3732.1(a) (bold in original).

Further, Appellant was convicted of homicide by vehicle under 75 

Pa.C.S.A. § 3732, which relevantly provides as follows: 

(a) Offense.--Any person who recklessly or with gross 

negligence causes the death of another person while engaged in 

the violation of any law of this Commonwealth or municipal 

ordinance applying to the operation or use of a vehicle or to the 

regulation of traffic except section 3802 (relating to driving under 

influence of alcohol or controlled substance) is guilty of homicide 

by vehicle, a felony of the third degree, when the violation is the 

cause of death.

75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3732(a) (bold in original).

As Appellant contends, to prove the offenses under Subsections 

3732.1(a) and 3732(a), the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable 

doubt that “a defendant’s conduct was either reckless or grossly negligent.”5

Commonwealth v. Sanders, 259 A.3d 524, 529 (Pa.Super. 2021) (en banc). 

See Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 203 A.3d 1115 (Pa.Super. 2019);

Commonwealth v. Matroni, 923 A.2d 444 (Pa.Super. 2007). 

____________________________________________

5 Appellant does not challenge the remaining elements for the offenses.
J-S06042-23

- 18 -

This Court has recognized that the state of mind of gross negligence 

under the aggravated assault by vehicle and homicide by vehicle statutes is 

the same as recklessness. Sanders, 259 A.3d at 531-32; Wyatt, 203 A.3d at 

1118; Matroni, 923 A.2d at 448. Thus, to sustain Appellant’s convictions for 

these two offenses in the case sub judice, the Commonwealth was required to 

prove Appellant acted recklessly.

The Crimes Code defines recklessness as follows:

A person acts recklessly with respect to a material 

element of an offense when he consciously disregards 

a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material 

element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk 

must be of such a nature and degree that, considering 

the nature and intent of the actor’s conduct and the 

circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a 

gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a 

reasonable person would observe in the actor's 

situation.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 302(b)(3). Recklessness requires proof that the 

defendant both had actual knowledge of a substantial and 

unjustifiable risk and disregarded that risk despite that 

knowledge. Sanders, 259 A.3d at 531–32; Commonwealth v.

Sitler, 144 A.3d 156, 164 (Pa.Super. 2016) (en banc).

Recklessness “implicates knowledge in two ways: (1)

the actor must consciously (i.e., with knowledge)

disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk; and (2)

the risk that the actor disregards is measured by the

circumstances known to the actor.” “Conscious 

disregard” of a risk, in turn, “involves first becoming

aware of the risk and then choosing to proceed in spite

of the risk.”

Commonwealth v. Fretts, 271 A.3d 383, 389 (Pa.Super. 2021) (quoting 

Sanders, 259 A.3d at 532).

Here, in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as verdict winner, 
J-S06042-23

- 19 -

we conclude Appellant’s actions evidenced a conscious disregard of the 

substantial and unjustified risk that he would be involved in a traffic accident

causing serious bodily injury and death. See id. 

For example, the evidence reveals that, in the hours leading up to the 

accident, Appellant picked up the Truglias in New Jersey, and after he 

“swerv[ed] in and out of traffic driving at high speed,” and slammed on his 

vehicle’s brakes to avoid hitting the rear of a car traveling in front of them, 

the Truglia family refused to continue riding with Appellant. N.T., 4/11/22, at 

121. Thus, at 1:00 a.m. on June 29, 2019, Appellant left the Truglia family at 

a rest stop in Allentown, Pennsylvania, and he continued with his journey solo. 

Approximately two hours later, Appellant, while driving on a straight 

stretch of road and traveling from 95 to 98 mph in a posted 50 mph zone, hit 

the rear of the Winters’ Jeep, which was traveling approximately 55 mph in 

the right-hand lane. Corporal Cutshaw, a member of the state police accident 

reconstruction unit, testified the evidence showed Appellant did not hit the 

brakes of his vehicle any earlier than a half-second prior to hitting the Winters’ 

Jeep in an offset position as if performing a lane change. Mrs. Winter 

confirmed Appellant’s vehicle came upon the rear of the Jeep “real fast.” Id. 

at 140. She noted her husband, who was driving the Jeep, made no lane 

changes before the accident, there were no adverse weather conditions, and 

there were no other vehicles, including a tractor trailer, in the area prior to 

the crash. 
J-S06042-23

- 20 -

Moreover, in the immediate aftermath of the accident, Appellant 

admitted to EMT Yerkes that he had been “driving from out of state all night

[and] wasn’t really sure if he fell asleep or not[.]” Id. at 178. The blood taken 

from Appellant at the emergency room at 5:17 a.m. revealed he had a level 

of 370 nanograms per milliliter of methamphetamine in his blood. Dr. Coyer 

testified this is a “high number” resulting in “impairment to a normal state.” 

N.T., 4/12/22, at 382-83. He noted methamphetamine has “psychoactive 

effects” and leads to “erratic driving.” Id. at 384-85. It also affects vision. Id. 

at 385. Dr. Coyer opined Appellant had used multiple doses of 

methamphetamine prior to the accident. Corporal Garipoli, a member of the 

vice narcotics unit, noted two of the syringes seized from the interior of 

Appellant’s vehicle contained “dried blood” on the needle portion. Id. at 251. 

Corporal Garipoli noted methamphetamine may be injected into the body, and 

Dr. Coyer testified that, when the drug is introduced into the body in this 

manner, the user gets “100 percent efficiency of the drug[.]” Id. at 386. 

Based on the aforementioned, we conclude the Commonwealth proved 

Appellant had actual knowledge of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and he 

consciously disregarded the risk. See Fretts, supra. Simply put, we disagree 

with Appellant that the evidence revealed he was, at most, negligent. Rather, 

we conclude “[h]is cumulative conduct was reckless, and the evidence 

supports the jury’s finding that he was guilty of [aggravated assault by vehicle 
J-S06042-23

- 21 -

and] homicide by vehicle beyond a reasonable doubt.” Matroni, 923 A.2d at 

449. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

Affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/15/2023