J-S05045-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

STACEY SUE STRUNK 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 788 MDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 10, 2021

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

No(s): CP-06-CR-0004314-2019

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STABILE, J., and DUBOW, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: APRIL 26, 2022

Appellant, Stacey Sue Strunk, appeals from the Judgment of Sentence 

entered February 10, 2021, after the trial court convicted her of Driving Under 

the Influence (“DUI”) of a controlled substance.1 Appellant challenges an 

evidentiary ruling as well as the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. After 

careful review, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

On August 5, 2019, at a Love’s Travel Stop in Berks County,

Pennsylvania State Trooper John Reiter responded to a report that Appellant 

appeared intoxicated and had been driving her car. When Trooper Reiter 

arrived, he observed Appellant exhibiting signs of impairment. He conducted

multiple field sobriety tests, which Appellant failed. Trooper Reiter’s video 

____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(2)
J-S05045-22

- 2 -

camera recorded Appellant’s performance. He arrested her on suspicion of 

DUI. She refused to consent to chemical testing.

At the PSP barracks, Appellant admitted that “it was possible that she 

had used methamphetamine.” Trial Ct. Op., 10/22/21, at 4. Trooper Phillip 

Cyphers conducted another round of sobriety tests, which Appellant again 

failed. 

While transporting Appellant to central processing, Trooper Reiter 

observed Appellant exhibiting more severe signs of impairment. Trooper 

Reiter’s camera recorded Appellant’s conduct. Trooper Reiter drove Appellant

to a local hospital, instead of central processing, where he released her to 

medical personnel. The Commonwealth subsequently charged Appellant with 

DUI-controlled substance.

On January 15, 2021, at the conclusion of a single-day bench trial, the 

court convicted Appellant of DUI. On February 10, 2021, the court sentenced 

Appellant to 3 days to 6 months’ incarceration. Appellant timely filed a postsentence Motion challenging, inter alia, the weight of the Commonwealth’s 

evidence underlying her DUI conviction. On May 17, 2021, the court denied 

the motion. Appellant timely filed a Notice of Appeal and both she and the trial 

court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

ISSUES

Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:

1. Did the Commonwealth present sufficient evidence to establish 

the verdict for [DUI] when there was no evidence presented to 

show that Appellant was under the influence of a controlled 
J-S05045-22

- 3 -

substance and there was no evidence that Appellant’s ability to 

safely drive or operate the vehicle was impaired?

2. Was the verdict for driving under the influence against the 

weight of the evidence?

3. Did the court err when it admitted Appellant’s extrajudicial 

statement when the corpus delicti of [DUI] had not been proven 

by a preponderance of the evidence[?2]

Appellant’s Br. at 7-8 (reordered for ease of analysis).

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Appellant’s arguments relate to her DUI conviction under Subsection 

3802(d)(2) of the Vehicle Code, which prohibits operation of a motor vehicle 

by an “individual [] under the influence of a drug or combination of drugs to 

a degree which impairs the individual’s ability to safely drive, operate or be in 

actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.” 75 Pa.C.S. § 

3802(d)(2). 

Sufficiency of the evidence

In her first issue, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the 

Commonwealth’s evidence to prove that she was incapable of safe driving due 

to intoxication.

3 Appellant’s Br. at 35-38. She argues that “there [was] no 

____________________________________________

2 Although Appellant assails in her brief both the court’s admission and 

consideration of her extrajudicial statement, Appellant objected only to the 

trial court’s admission of her statement. N.T. Trial, 1/15/21, at 54-55. We, 

thus, constrain our review to that issue. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised 

in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on 

appeal.”). 

3 Throughout her sufficiency challenge, Appellant repeatedly assails the weight 

that the trial court, as fact-finder, placed on circumstantial evidence of her 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S05045-22

- 4 -

direct or circumstantial evidence that Appellant was under the influence of a 

controlled substance.” Id. at 37.

Our standard of review applicable to challenges to the sufficiency of 

evidence is well settled. “Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to 

the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, and taking all reasonable inferences 

in favor of the Commonwealth, the reviewing court must determine whether 

the evidence supports the fact-finder’s determination of all of the elements of 

the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Hall, 830 A.2d 

537, 541-42 (Pa. 2003). Further, a conviction may be based solely on 

circumstantial evidence, and the trier of fact—while passing on the credibility 

of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence—is free to believe all, part, or 

none of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1, 39-40 (Pa.

Super. 2014). In conducting this review, we may not weigh the evidence and 

substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder. Id.

Our Supreme Court has recognized that the Commonwealth can prove 

DUI through evidence of “the offender’s actions and behavior,” including 

“[in]ability to pass field sobriety tests[,] demeanor, including toward the 

investigating officer,” and refusal of chemical testing. Commonwealth v. 

Segida, 985 A.2d 871, 879 (Pa. 2009); Commonwealth v. Myers, 164 A.3d 

1162, 1171 (Pa. 2017). See also Commonwealth v. Griffin, 32 A.3d 1231, 

____________________________________________

intoxication and inability to safely operate a vehicle. These arguments present 

challenges to the weight of the evidence, Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 

A.2d 745, 751-52 (Pa. 2000), and we address them in Appellant’s second 

issue, where she has properly raised a weight challenge. 
J-S05045-22

- 5 -

1239 (Pa. 2011) (citing Segida and explaining that “subsection 3802(d)(2) 

does not limit, constrain, or specify the type of evidence that the 

Commonwealth can proffer to prove its case.”). “The weight to be assigned 

these various types of evidence presents a question for the fact-finder[.]” 

Segida, 985 A.2d at 879.

The trial court found the Commonwealth’s evidence sufficient to prove 

DUI. Specifically, the court cited testimony by Love’s employee Janelle Fasig

and Troopers Reiter and Cyphers, along with video of Trooper Reiter’s 

interactions with Appellant, which established that Appellant drove her vehicle

at the rest stop, exhibited signs of impairment, failed multiple field sobriety 

tests, and refused to undergo chemical testing. Trial Ct. Op. at 6. It explained:

[Appellant’s] impaired ability to safely drive, operate, or control 

the vehicle is well established by the testimony of the store 

employee [Fasig], both state troopers and the video recordings 

clearly demonstrating her unstable, erratic physical movements, 

profuse sweating and incoherent, barely responsive or 

understandable speech, she was not able to successfully complete 

the sobriety tests as were administered separately and 

independently by the two state troopers. Her admission to Trooper 

Cyphers . . . established that she was under the influence of a 

drug or a combination of drugs. The [c]ourt . . . considered her 

refusal to submit to a blood test as evidence of [Appellant’s]

consciousness of guilt. There was[, therefore,] sufficient evidence 

to support the verdict and accordingly, no merit to this issue.

Id. (internal citation omitted). 

The record supports the trial court’s finding. Fasig testified on behalf of 

the Commonwealth and explained that, while in Love’s, Appellant “was very 

jittery[, h]er arms were moving around[, and s]he was acting like she was 
J-S05045-22

- 6 -

talking to somebody next to her, but there was nobody there.” N.T. Trial, 

1/15/21, at 6. Fasig then watched as Appellant drove her vehicle to a gas 

pump. Id. at 7-8.

Trooper Reiter also testified on behalf of the Commonwealth, and stated

that when he first arrived to the scene, Appellant “appeared off balance, 

distraught in nature, confused[, h]ad difficulty making really any sense 

communicating back and forth[, and] difficulty following simple instructions.” 

Id. at 18. Based on this “first contact,” Trooper Reiter believed Appellant 

“appeared impaired” so he administered standard field sobriety and Advanced 

Roadside Impairment Driving Enforcement (“ARIDE”) tests to Appellant. Id.

at 20-28. Appellant failed the tests. Id. at 28. The Commonwealth introduced 

into evidence and played for the court the video of this testing. Id. at 28-30. 

Trooper Reiter explained that, “[b]ased off my initial observations [and] all 

clues during standard field sobriety testing, I believed [Appellant] was under 

the influence of controlled substance and she was placed under arrest because 

I did not believe she was safely capable of operating a motor vehicle.” Id. at 

30-31. Appellant refused to consent to chemical testing. Id. at 31.

At the police barracks, Trooper Cyphers interviewed Appellant. Appellant 

admitted to Trooper Cyphers that “it was possible that she had used 

methamphetamine.” Id. at 54. Trooper Cyphers then administered to 

Appellant another round of field sobriety tests. Id. at 54-57. Appellant also 

failed these tests, leading Trooper Cyphers to conclude that she was impaired. 

Id. Trooper Cyphers ultimately explained that “[b]ased upon the overall 
J-S05045-22

- 7 -

observation of how [Appellant] was acting, not only her movements, and then 

the field sobriety, I believed she was impaired, and that impairment would 

cause her to be incapable of safely operating a vehicle.” Id. at 58.

Shortly thereafter, as Trooper Reiter began to transport Appellant to 

central processing, he observed that Appellant was “talking to herself[,] 

sweating profusely, even though the [air conditioning] was on the max 

setting[,] flailing around the back seat and she appeared to be arguing with 

herself at times.” Id. at 38. The Commonwealth introduced into evidence and 

played for the court the video of Appellant’s conduct in Trooper Reiter’s 

vehicle. Id. at 39-40. Trooper Reiter viewed Appellant’s conduct as “several 

more indicators that she was under the influence of a controlled substance.” 

Id. at 40.

Viewing the totality of the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, we conclude that the Commonwealth’s evidence was 

sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Appellant was intoxicated and 

incapable of safe driving. This evidence included Appellant’s admission to 

using methamphetamine, her failure of multiple field sobriety tests, and the 

Troopers’ conclusions that Appellant was impaired and incapable of safe 

driving. Appellant’s sufficiency challenge, thus, fails to garner relief. 

Weight of the evidence

In her second issue, Appellant challenges the court’s exercise of 

discretion in denying her post-sentence motion challenging the weight of the 

evidence. She argues that the court should have discredited all of Trooper 
J-S05045-22

- 8 -

Reiter’s testimony because he “only had 12 DUIs under his belt by the time of 

trial [and, therefore, his] observations are unreliable and not credible.”

Appellant’s Br. at 40. Additionally, Appellant asserts that the court should have 

ignored her multiple failed field sobriety tests because Trooper Reiter 

admitted, on cross examination, that the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration has not validated standardized tests to detect drug use. Id. at 

37. Finally, she argues that the court should have given greater weight to

evidence that she successfully parked her car beside a gas pump and to her 

counsel’s assertion during closing argument that her conduct “could very well 

be the result of a medical issue.” Id. at 36-38. 

“The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact, who is 

free to believe all, none[,] or some of the evidence and to determine the 

credibility of the witnesses.” Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536, 545 

(Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). The fact-finder is solely responsible for 

resolving contradictory testimony. Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 747 A.2d 

910, 917 (Pa. Super. 2000). It is well-settled that we cannot substitute our 

judgment for that of the trier of fact. Talbert, supra at 546. 

Moreover, appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the trial 

court’s exercise of discretion in denying the weight challenge raised in the 

post-sentence motion; this Court does not review the underlying question of 

whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. See id. at 545-46. 

“In order for a defendant to prevail on a challenge to the weight of the 

evidence, the evidence must be so tenuous, vague and uncertain that the 
J-S05045-22

- 9 -

verdict shocks the conscience of the court.” Id. at 546 (citation omitted). As 

our Supreme Court has made clear, reversal is only appropriate “where the 

facts and inferences disclose a palpable abuse of discretion[.]” 

Commonwealth v. Morales, 91 A.3d 80, 91 (Pa. 2014) (citations and 

emphasis omitted).

The trial court, which sat as fact-finder at Appellant’s trial, explained 

that it denied Appellant’s weight challenge because “[t]he evidence presented 

at trial was not contrary to the verdicts.” Trial Ct. Op., 10/22/21, at 8. The 

court credited testimony by Fasig, Trooper Reiter, and Trooper Cyphers, and

Appellant’s “statement about possible methamphetamine use,” and concluded 

that, “when viewed in totality with her behavior at Love’s Travel Stop, her 

behavior in the patrol car, her inability to perform the [standard field sobriety 

tests] and the ARIDE tests,” the Commonwealth’s evidence “established the 

elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.

Appellant essentially asks us to reassess the credibility of Troopers 

Reiter and Cyphers and reweigh the testimony and evidence presented at trial. 

We cannot and will not do so. Our review of the record shows that the evidence 

is not tenuous, vague, or uncertain, and the verdict was not so contrary to the 

evidence as to shock the court’s conscience. We, thus, discern no abuse of 

discretion in the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s weight claim. 

Admission of statement regarding methamphetamine use

In her final issue, Appellant raises an evidentiary challenge by arguing 

that the trial court violated the corpus delicti rule by admitting her statement 
J-S05045-22

- 10 -

regarding her possible methamphetamine use. Appellant’s Br. at 22-34. We 

review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. 

Dupre, 866 A.2d 1089, 1097 (Pa. Super. 2005).

Corpus delicti means, literally, “the body of a crime.” Commonwealth 

v. Bullock, 170 A.3d 1109, 1117 n.7 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted). 

The corpus delicti rule “places the burden on the prosecution to establish that 

a crime has actually occurred before a confession or admission of the accused 

connecting him to the crime can be admitted.” Dupre, 866 A.2d at 1097 

(citation omitted). “The historical purpose of the rule is to prevent a conviction 

based solely upon a confession or admission, where in fact no crime has been 

committed.” In re T.B., 11 A.3d 500, 505 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation 

omitted). “Hence, the Commonwealth is required to corroborate a confession 

with independent evidence that the circumstances are more consistent with 

the commission of a crime than an accident.” Id. “Simply put, the 

Commonwealth cannot convict a person solely based upon a defendant’s 

confession.” Id.

In responding to Appellant’s claim, the trial court noted that it admitted 

Appellant’s inculpatory statement after “the Commonwealth [] established 

that the defendant was driving a vehicle at a time when she was exhibiting 

behavior that was so erratic that it drew the attention of [Fasig,] who 

perceived [Appellant] to be intoxicated and prompted the call to police, as well 

as the failure of the [standard field sobriety tests] administered [by] Trooper 
J-S05045-22

- 11 -

Reiter[.]” Trial C.t Op. at 8-9. The record supports the trial court’s findings,

and we discern no abuse of discretion. 

Before the court admitted Appellant’s inculpatory statement, the 

Commonwealth presented evidence showing that (1) Appellant drove her 

vehicle at the rest stop after the store clerk observed her exhibiting signs of 

impairment; (2) Trooper Reiter observed multiple signs of impairment; (3) 

Appellant failed multiple field sobriety tests, and (4) Appellant refused 

chemical testing. See N.T. Trial at 6-8, 18-31, 38-40. Additionally, Trooper 

Reiter had testified that, based on his observations and experience, he 

concluded that Appellant was impaired and incapable of safely driving. Id. at 

30-31. This evidence was sufficient to establish the corpus delicti of DUI before 

admission of Appellant’s statement. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(2) (requiring 

proof that an individual (1) drove, (2) while “under the influence of a drug[, 

(3)] to a degree which impairs the individual’s ability to safely drive[.]”). 

Accordingly, the court did not violate the corpus delicti rule by admitting 

Appellant’s inculpatory statement.

In sum, Appellant’s sufficiency, weight, and evidentiary claims fail. As a 

result, we affirm Appellant’s Judgment of Sentence. 

Judgment of Sentence affirmed. 
J-S05045-22

- 12 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 04/26/2022