Opinion ID: 6105180
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sergeant Murphy.

Text: We begin our analysis by noting that although Sergeant Murphy was the only officer to pursue Corbin down the dirt path, Deputy Durbin and Officer 9 Cravens were also involved in the initial pursuit. The Commonwealth charged Corbin with three counts of wanton endangerment in the first degree, one for each officer involved. At trial, the Commonwealth presented evidence that Corbin exceeded the speed limit, at times by nearly 20 m.p.h, down winding country roads and highways, that he passed vehicles in prohibited zones and that he riskily evaded police attempts to bring him to a halt. The jury convicted Corbin on all three counts, but the trial court vacated instructions 5(a) and 8(a), which referred to Deputy Durbin and Officer Cravens because the court regarded the testimony as insufficient to establish an elevated risk. However, the court allowed the conviction with regards to Sergeant Murphy to remain. Unlike the other two officers, Sergeant Murphy was involved in the initial attempt to “box” Corbin in and bring him to a stop, as well as the only vehicle to pursue Corbin down a dirt path meant for ATV’s and not large vehicles. Consequently, Sergeant Murphy’s risk throughout the pursuit was different from either Deputy Durbin or Officer Cravens, whose role the trial court described as merely “following” Corbin. Taken in conjunction with Corbin’s other behavior throughout the chase, the trial court properly ruled that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to present the jury with the first-degree wanton endangerment instruction as it related to Sergeant Murphy.