Court Opinion

ID: 9746393
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:14:17.881398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:12.686014
License: Public Domain

OLSZEWSKI, Judge,
concurring:
Though agreeing with the majority’s disposition of this case, I write separately to additionally note that the trial court acted outside the scope of its authority in granting appellee’s motion to arrest judgment of sentence on the vehicular homicide conviction. In Commonwealth v. Gaither, 355 Pa.Super. 502, 513 A.2d 1034 (1986), this Court stated:
It is clear that a trial judge has no more authority over a verdict in a non-jury trial than he does over a jury verdict. Following the recording of a verdict in a non-jury trial, the trial judge is limited to a consideration of post-verdict motions in arrest of judgment or the granting of a new trial. In a motion for an arrest of judgment, the trial judge cannot alter the verdict based upon a redetermination of credibility or a re-evaluation of the evidence.
Id., 355 Pa.Superior Ct. at 504, 513 A.2d at 1035 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
*430In the instant case, the trial judge originally found appel-lee guilty of vehicular homicide in a non-jury trial, but the trial judge subsequently entered an order arresting the judgment of sentence on the vehicular homicide conviction. The trial judge acted improperly since his opinion in support of the order arresting judgment did not provide reasons as to why the facts established at trial were insufficient to support the vehicular homicide conviction. Rather, the trial judge merely re-evaluated the evidence adduced at trial, stating “Defendant’s (appellee’s) temporary inadvertence to the roadway ( ... I was aware of a noise behind be and I looked into my rear view mirror — See Transcript of Trial p. 129) cannot be construed as a conscious disregard of a known risk. The ommission (sic) on Defendant’s part to keep his eye on the highway does not warrant a finding of reckless or grossly negligent conduct.” Trial court opinion at p. 3. The trial judge, therefore, erred in granting appel-lee’s motion in arrest of judgment based on his re-evaluation of the evidence, rather than ascertaining that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support the vehicular homicide conviction.