J-S75041-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JOSEPH F. PORTERFIELD,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 898 WDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 30, 2017

in the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County,

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-43-CR-0001760-2016

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., OTT, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JANUARY 30, 2018

Joseph F. Porterfield (“Porterfield”) appeals from the judgment of 

sentence imposed following his conviction of two counts of driving under the 

influence of alcohol (“DUI”).

1

 We affirm.

At approximately 1:00 a.m. on July 2, 2016, Porterfield entered a DUI 

checkpoint on the Shenango Valley Freeway in Sharon, Pennsylvania, and 

his vehicle was stopped.

2

Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Sherry Hogue 

(“Trooper Hogue”) approached Porterfield’s vehicle. Trooper Hogue 

immediately detected an odor of alcoholic beverages coming from inside of

the vehicle, and asked Porterfield to exit the vehicle. Trooper Hogue smelled 

alcohol on Porterfield’s breath and noticed that his eyes were glassy and 

____________________________________________

1 See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1) and (b).

2

Porterfield’s ten-year-old daughter was a passenger in the vehicle. 
J-S75041-17

- 2 -

bloodshot. Porterfield admitted to Trooper Hogue that he had consumed a 

six-pack of beer, but alleged that he was not drunk because he was 

“immune” to alcohol. Trooper Hogue asked Porterfield to perform field 

sobriety tests. However, Porterfield replied that he could not perform the

tests because of a herniated disk in his back. Trooper Hogue then 

administered a portable breath test, which was positive for alcohol.

Trooper Hogue placed Porterfield under arrest for suspicion of DUI,

and transported him to Sharon Regional Hospital for a chemical test of his

blood alcohol content (“BAC”).3 At the hospital, Trooper Hogue read 

Porterfield the warnings contained on the Pennsylvania Department of

____________________________________________

3 Trooper Hogue did not have a warrant to compel Porterfield to submit to 

the blood test. 
J-S75041-17

- 3 -

Transportation DL-26 form (“DL-26 form”),

4

in accordance with the mandate 

of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1547 (concerning blood or breath testing to determine 

amount of alcohol/controlled substance, and the consequences for refusal to 

submit to a test). After Trooper Hogue read Porterfield the DL-26 form 

warnings, both she and Porterfield signed the form. Porterfield then

submitted to a blood test. A subsequent chemical analysis of Porterfield’s 

blood sample revealed that he had a BAC of .13 percent (hereinafter 

referred to as “the blood test result”).

____________________________________________

4 Notably to the instant appeal, the DL-26 form that Trooper Hogue read to 

Porterfield was the new version, which had been revised in response to the 

decision of the United States Supreme Court in Birchfield v. North

Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016). The Birchfield Court held that, because

the taking of a blood sample is a search within the meaning of the Fourth

Amendment to the United States Constitution, police officers may not

compel the taking of a blood sample without a search warrant, absent an

applicable exception. See id. at 2185. After concluding that “the search

incident to arrest doctrine does not justify the warrantless taking of a blood

sample,” id., the Birchfield Court considered whether implied-consent laws,

which require cooperation with blood-alcohol testing as “a condition of the

privilege of driving on state roads,” could provide an exception to the

warrant requirement consistent with the federal constitution. Id. at 2169,

2185-86. The Birchfield Court held that, although implied-consent laws

that impose civil penalties and evidentiary consequences for refusing to

consent are constitutional, implied-consent laws that impose criminal

penalties for refusing to consent to a blood test are unconstitutional because

“motorists cannot be deemed to have consented to submit to a blood test on

pain of committing a criminal offense.” Id. at 2185-86. Importantly, in the

instant case, the post-Birchfield DL-26 form that Trooper Hogue read to

Porterfield did not contain any reference to enhanced criminal penalties for

refusal to submit to a blood test (though the form did state that such refusal

would result in the motorist’s operating privileges being suspended for at

least a year). See N.T. (Suppression Hearing), 4/6/17, at 6 (wherein

Trooper Hogue read into the record the contents of the DL-26 form at issue).
J-S75041-17

- 4 -

The Commonwealth charged Porterfield with two counts of DUI, and 

one count each of careless driving5and recklessly endangering another 

person (“REAP”).

6

 Prior to trial, Porterfield filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion

(hereinafter “Motion to Suppress”), seeking, inter alia, to suppress the blood 

test result. Porterfield argued that the blood test result was unlawfully 

obtained without a warrant, and his consent to the blood draw was 

unknowing, involuntary, and coerced. 

After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered an 

Order denying the Motion to Suppress. Concomitantly with this Order, the 

trial court issued Findings of Fact. Therein, the court found that Birchfield

was inapplicable to the instant case, and the warrantless blood draw was

thus not illegal, since the new, post-Birchfield DL-26 form that Trooper

Hogue read to Porterfield contained no mention of enhanced criminal

penalties for refusal to submit to a blood test.

The matter then proceeded to a non-jury trial on May 12, 2017. When 

the Commonwealth sought to admit the blood test result, Porterfield’s 

counsel objected, asserting that the chain of custody concerning this 

evidence was deficient. The trial court overruled the objection and admitted 

the blood test result. Prior to the close of trial, the trial court granted 

Porterfield’s Motion for judgment of acquittal on the charges of careless 

____________________________________________

5 See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3714(a).

6 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705.
J-S75041-17

- 5 -

driving and REAP. The court then found Porterfield guilty of two counts of 

DUI. 

On May 30, 2017, the trial court sentenced Porterfield to serve not less 

than 48 hours nor more than 6 months in the Mercer County Jail, plus a 

$1,000 fine and court costs. Porterfield timely filed a Notice of Appeal.

On June 19, 2017, the trial court issued an Order directing Porterfield 

to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on 

appeal within 21 days.7 Porterfield did not file his Concise Statement until

July 18, 2017, nine days late. The trial court thereafter issued a Rule

1925(a) Opinion, addressing the merits of the issues raised by Porterfield

despite the lateness of his Concise Statement.

8

Porterfield now presents the following issues for our review:

1. [Whether] the suppression court erred in allowing a 

warrantless withdrawal of Porterfield’s blood[?]

____________________________________________

7 The trial court’s docket indicates that Porterfield was given notice of the 

entry of the June 19, 2017 Order.

8 Though we could find that Porterfield waived his issues on appeal based on 

the untimeliness of his Concise Statement, see Commonwealth v.

Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 776 (Pa. 2005), we decline to do so because the

trial court addressed the merits of Porterfield’s issues in its Opinion. See

Commonwealth v. Thompson, 39 A.3d 335, 340 (Pa. Super. 2012)

(declining to find waiver because the trial court had addressed the issues 

raised in the untimely concise statement); see also Commonwealth v.

Burton, 973 A.2d 428, 433 (Pa. Super. 2009) (en banc) (stating that 

“[w]hen counsel has filed an untimely Rule 1925(b) statement and the trial 

court has addressed those issues[,] we need not remand and may address 

the merits of the issues presented.”).
J-S75041-17

- 6 -

2. [Whether] the trial court erred in admitting the results of 

testing on Porterfield’s blood without a proper chain of 

custody[?]

Brief for Appellant at 5 (capitalization omitted).

In his first issue, Porterfield argues that the trial court erred in denying 

his Motion to Suppress, where the blood test result was unlawfully obtained

under Birchfield, supra, and his consent to the blood draw was invalid. 

See Brief for Appellant at 10-17.

[O]ur standard of review in addressing a challenge to a 

trial court’s denial of a suppression motion is limited to 

determining whether the factual findings are supported by the 

record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts 

are correct. We are bound by the suppression court’s factual 

findings so long as they are supported by the record; our 

standard of review on questions of law is de novo. Where, as 

here, the defendant is appealing the ruling of the suppression 

court, we may consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth 

and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains 

uncontradicted. Our scope of review of suppression rulings 

includes only the suppression hearing record and excludes 

evidence elicited at trial.

Commonwealth v. Yandamuri, 159 A.3d 503, 516 (Pa. 2017) (citations

omitted). 

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution protect 

citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. 

Commonwealth v. McAdoo, 2012 PA Super 118, 46 A.3d 781, 

784 (Pa. Super. 2012). Blood tests constitute searches under 

the Fourth Amendment[,] as they implicate privacy concerns. 

Birchfield, 136 S.Ct. at 2173[; s]ee also Commonwealth v.

Ellis, 415 Pa. Super. 220, 608 A.2d 1090, 1091 (Pa. Super. 

1992) (providing that “the administration of a blood test is a 

search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment if it is 

performed by an agent of the government”).
J-S75041-17

- 7 -

“A search conducted without a warrant is deemed to be 

unreasonable and therefore constitutionally impermissible, 

unless an established exception applies.” Commonwealth v.

Strickler, 563 Pa. 47, 56, 757 A.2d 884, 888 (2000) (citations 

omitted). Those exceptions include voluntary consent. Id. “The 

central Fourth Amendment inquiries in consent cases entail 

assessment of the constitutional validity of the citizen/police 

encounter giving rise to the consent; and, ultimately, the 

voluntariness of consent.” Id.

Commonwealth v. Smith, 2017 PA Super 416, at *9 (Pa. Super. 2017).

In Smith, which is directly on point, this Court recently discussed 

Birchfield, and the admissibility of warrantless blood test results obtained 

after the motorist’s signing of a post-Birchfield DL-26 form, and consenting 

to the blood test. In Smith, as here, the appellant was arrested by Trooper 

Hogue in Mercer County for suspicion of DUI, and taken to a hospital for a 

blood test. Id. at *3. Trooper Hogue read the appellant the warnings on

the post-Birchfield DL-26 form, which did not contain any information 

regarding enhanced criminal penalties for refusal to submit to a blood test. 

Id. The appellant signed the DL-26 form and the blood test was performed, 

which later revealed that the appellant’s BAC was well above the legal limit. 

Id. 

On appeal, the appellant in Smith raised a virtually identical claim to 

Porterfield’s above-mentioned claim, challenging the suppression court’s 

denial of her motion to suppress the warrantless blood testing results, and 

relying upon Birchfield. Id. at *8. This Court addressed the appellant’s 

claim and summarized the applicable law as follows:
J-S75041-17

- 8 -

In Birchfield, the High Court reviewed a consolidated case in 

which one of the petitioners, Steve Michael Beylund, was 

arrested for DUI and informed that the refusal to submit to blood 

testing constituted a crime itself under North Dakota law. 

Thereafter, petitioner Beylund argued that his consent had been 

coerced by the officer’s warning. Relevant to the instant case, 

the United States Supreme Court held that a state may not 

“insist upon an intrusive blood test, but also ... impose criminal 

penalties upon the refusal to submit to such a test.” Birchfield, 

136 S.Ct. at 2185. Moreover, the High Court emphasized that 

“motorists cannot be deemed to have consented to a blood test 

upon pain of committing a criminal offense.” Id. at 2186. As 

petitioner Beylund had consented to a blood test only after police 

had erroneously informed him that he could be criminally 

penalized if he refused to do so, the Birchfield Court remanded 

for the trial court to “reevaluate Beyland’s consent given the 

partial inaccuracy of the officer’s advisory.” Id.

Nevertheless, the Birchfield Court emphasized that its holding 

did not apply to the imposition of civil penalties and evidentiary 

consequences upon motorists suspected of DUI who refused 

blood testing upon their arrest:

It is well established that a search is reasonable when the 

subject consents, and that sometimes consent to a 

search need not be express but may be fairly inferred 

from context. Our prior opinions have referred 

approvingly to the general concept of implied-consent 

laws that impose civil penalties and evidentiary

consequences on motorists who refuse to comply. 

Petitioners do not question the constitutionality of those

laws, and nothing we say here should be read to cast

doubt on them.

Birchfield, 136 S.Ct. at 2185 (emphasis added) (citations 

omitted).[FN]

[FN] We observe that the Pennsylvania Commonwealth 

Court held that Birchfield does not affect the imposition 

of civil license suspension for refusal to submit to a blood 

test. Boseman v. Commonwealth, Dep’t of

Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 157 

A.3d 10, 21 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017)[; see also 

Commonwealth v. Bell, 167 A.3d 744, 750 (Pa. Super. 

2017) (same).]
J-S75041-17

- 9 -

Thereafter, this Court decided Commonwealth v. Evans, 

2016 PA Super 293, 153 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2016), in which 

the appellant had similarly argued that his consent to blood 

testing after his arrest for DUI was coerced as he only consented 

after the police warned him that his refusal to submit to blood 

testing would result in harsher penalties upon conviction. 

Although the Evans [C]ourt recognized that Pennsylvania’s 

implied consent law did not make refusal to submit to a blood 

test a crime, the panel emphasized that the law “undoubtedly 

impose[s] criminal penalties on the refusal to submit to a 

test.” Evans, 153 A.3d at 331 (quoting Birchfield, 136 S. Ct. 

at 2185-86). This Court pointed [] to the DUI penalty provisions 

set forth in 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3804:

Section 3804(c) provides that an “individual who 

violates section 3802(a)(1)[, DUI, general impairment] 

and refused testing of blood” is punished more severely 

than an individual who commits the stand-alone DUI, 

general impairment offense under Section 3802(a)(1)—

and to the same extent as an individual who 

violates Section 3802(c), relating to DUI, highest rate of

alcohol. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3804(c). As such Birchfield

controls the case at bar.

Id.

Since the appellant in Evans had argued that he agreed to 

submit to blood testing only after being informed that harsher 

penalties would apply if he refused, this Court held that the 

officer’s advisory to Evans was “partially inaccurate[,]”

as Birchfield prohibits states from imposing criminal penalties 

for the refusal to submit to blood testing. Evans, 153 A.3d at 

331. As a result, this Court vacated the appellant’s sentence 

and the suppression order and remanded with instructions for 

the trial court to reevaluate the voluntariness of appellant’s 

consent in light of this inaccurate warning and the totality of the 

circumstances.

The instant case is factually distinguishable from

Birchfield and Evans. To reiterate, the decision in Birchfield, 

which was controlling law at the time of [a]ppellant’s arrest, 

prohibited states from imposing criminal penalties upon an 

individual’s refusal to submit to a warrantless blood test. 

Birchfield, 136 S. Ct. at 2185. The trial court in this case[, as 
J-S75041-17

- 10 -

in Porterfield’s case,] found Birchfield was inapplicable since 

[a]ppellant was never advised that she would be subject to 

enhanced criminal sanctions upon refusal of blood testing. Our 

review of the record confirms this finding; both parties agree 

that Trooper Hogue only informed [a]ppellant that her driver’s 

license would be suspended if she refused blood testing. 

Appellant signed a DL-26 form acknowledging that she was 

advised of this particular consequence. This form does not 

contain any reference to enhanced criminal penalties. See

Commonwealth’s Exhibit 1, DL-26 form. Thereafter, [a]ppellant 

agreed to submit to blood testing, which revealed a blood alcohol 

level of 0.274 [percent]. We cannot conclude that the trial court 

erred in denying [a]ppellant’s suppression motion ....

Smith, 2017 PA Super 416, at **10-13 (footnote in original). The sound 

rationale of Smith is controlling in the instant case, and compels an identical 

result. See id. 

We additionally note that Porterfield appears to argue that his consent 

cannot be deemed knowing and voluntary where, at the time of his arrest, 

the Pennsylvania DUI penalty provision allowing for enhanced penalties upon 

refusal of blood testing had not yet been amended by the General Assembly

to conform with Birchfield and its progeny. See Brief for Appellant at 16-

17 (asserting, inter alia, that “Pennsylvania’s driving under the influence law 

has been around long enough that this[, i.e., presumably, the preBirchfield enhanced criminal penalty for refusal to submit to a blood test, 

as previously contained in former 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1547(b)(2)(ii) and
J-S75041-17

- 11 -

3804(c)9,] is common knowledge to the motoring public[,] not to mention 

that we are all presumed to know the law.”). However, our review of the 

record discloses that at no time did Porterfield raise this claim before the 

trial court. Accordingly, it is waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (stating that a 

claim cannot be raised for the first time on appeal); see also 

Commonwealth v. Phillips, 141 A.3d 512, 522 (Pa. Super. 2016) (stating 

that a new theory of relief cannot be raised for the first time on appeal). 

Thus, Porterfield’s first issue challenging the suppression court’s refusal to 

suppress the blood test result fails. 

In his second issue, Porterfield contends that the trial court erred by

overruling his objection to the admission of the blood test result, where the

chain of custody concerning this evidence was lacking. See Brief for 

Appellant at 18-21. Porterfield advances scant substantive argument to 

develop this claim, asserting as follows: “In Porterfield’s trial, the 

Commonwealth failed to introduce any proper evidence to establish the 

chain of custody between the time the arresting trooper placed the blood 

into evidence and the time the chemist tested the same.” Id. at 21.

The admissibility of evidence is a matter for the discretion 

of the trial court and a ruling thereon will be reversed on appeal 

only upon a showing that the trial court committed an abuse of 

____________________________________________

9 On July 20, 2017, the General Assembly amended sections 1547(b)(2)(ii) 

and 3804(c), so as to eliminate enhanced criminal penalties for refusing a 

warrantless test of one’s blood (and the warning associated therewith), 

bringing these statutes into compliance with Birchfield. See Section 4 of 

the Act of July 20, 2017, P.L. 333.
J-S75041-17

- 12 -

discretion. An abuse of discretion may not be found merely 

because an appellate court might have reached a different 

conclusion, but requires a result of manifest unreasonableness, 

or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so 

as to be clearly erroneous.

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 42 A.3d 1017, 1027 (Pa. 2012) (citations and 

quotation marks omitted).

We review a challenge concerning a chain of custody under the 

following standard:

While the Commonwealth bears the burden of demonstrating

some reasonable connection between the profe[]red exhibits

and the true evidence, Commonwealth v. Pedano, 266

Pa.Super. 461, 467, 405 A.2d 525, 528 (1979), it need not

establish the sanctity of its exhibits beyond a moral

certainty. E.g., Commonwealth v. Miller, 234 Pa.Super.

146, 155, 339 A.2d 573, 578 (1975), aff’d, 469 Pa. 24, 364

A.2d 886 (1976). The Commonwealth need not produce

every individual who came into contact with an item of

evidence, nor must it eliminate every hypothetical possibility

of tampering. Commonwealth v. Rick, 244 Pa.Super. 33,

38, 366 A.2d 302, 304 (1976). A complete chain of custody

is not required so long as the Commonwealth’s evidence,

direct and circumstantial, establishes a reasonable inference

that the identity and condition of the exhibits have remained

the same from the time they were first received until the time

of trial. Commonwealth v. Oates, 269 Pa.Super. 157, 163,

409 A.2d 112, 115 (1979); Commonwealth v. Miller,

supra. Any gaps in testimony regarding the chain of custody

go to the weight to be given the testimony, not to its

admissibility. Commonwealth v. Bolden, 486 Pa. 383, 388-

89, 406 A.2d 333, 335-36 (1979).

Commonwealth v. Cugaini, 452 A.2d 1064, 1065 (Pa. Super. 1982).

In its Opinion, the trial court addressed and rejected Porterfield’s 

challenge to the admissibility of the blood test result, stating as follows:

Turning to the [] issue of whether the Commonwealth

established the chain of custody of the drawn blood such that 
J-S75041-17

- 13 -

the lab results were admissible, the [trial c]ourt finds that the 

Commonwealth has met its burden. The facts reveal that there 

was sufficient chain of custody evidence produced establishing 

that the blood drawn at the hospital was the blood tested at the 

crime lab.

Theresa Susak [(“Susak”)] testified at the trial of this case.

She was [the] phlebotomist [at] Sharon Regional Hospital who 

performed the blood draw. [] Susak testified as to how she uses 

a kit and[,] after she withdrew the blood[,] she would hand it 

over to the police officer and would sign and initial all 

paperwork. (Trial transcript pp. 10-15).

Trooper [] Hogue ... testified[,] in pertinent part[,] that 

after taking [Porterfield] to the Sharon Regional Hospital[,] she 

was present when ... Susak took [Porterfield’s] blood. (T.T. p. 

8). After the blood was drawn, Trooper Hogue testified that she 

retained control of the blood until it was entered into evidence[,]

and then the evidence was ultimately sent to the Erie Crime Lab.

(T.T. p. 8). Trooper Hogue further testified that the evidence 

taken from the hospital goes into the evidence locker and would 

either have been hand[-]delivered or picked up by UPS. (T.T. p. 

9).

Neal Rerko [(“Rerko”)] testified that he is a forensic 

chemist employed by the Pennsylvania State Police at the Erie 

Regional Crime Laboratory. (T.T. p. 20). [] Rerko testified that 

the kit containing the blood draw was submitted to the 

laboratory on July 7, 2016, having arrived at 15:27 hours by 

Trooper Stuck[]y. Thus, the kit was hand[-]delivered to the 

laboratory[,] and then the laboratory chain of custody picked up 

from there. (T.T. p. 26). Once the crime lab received the 

evidence[,] it was entered into the laboratory information 

system and assigned a barcode and a laboratory number that is 

used to track the evidence as it moves through the laboratory. 

[] Rerko testified that the evidence was received by the evidence 

technician, [and] placed into refrigerator vault one on July 7, 

2016. The evidence technician then retrieved the evidence and 

gave it to [] Rerko[,] who destroyed the packaging and broke 

out the tubes of blood themselves and conducted his analysis. 

(T.T. p. 27).

[Porterfield’s] allegation goes to the weight to be afforded 

the evidence. It is sufficient that the evidence, direct and 

circumstantial, establish a reasonable inference that the identity 
J-S75041-17

- 14 -

and condition of the exhibit remain unimpaired until they are 

surrendered to the court. (Com[monwealth] v. Feliciano, 67 

A.3d 19 (Pa. Super. 2013)). There is no rule requiring the

prosecution produce as witnesses all persons who are in a 

position to come into contact with the article sought to be 

introduced into evidence. Physical evidence may be properly 

admitted despite gaps in testimony regarding custody[.] 

(Com[monwealth] v. Jenkins, 332 A.2d 490, 492 (Pa. Super. 

1974)); Feliciano, supra at 29. [Porterfield’s] argument must 

fail on this issue[.]

Trial Court Opinion, 7/25/17, at 3-5. We agree with the trial court’s 

determination and sound analysis, which is supported by the record, and 

therefore affirm on this basis in rejecting Porterfield’s second issue. See id.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/30/2018