Court Opinion

ID: 9753996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:37:46.810966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:46.408269
License: Public Domain

SPAETH, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the majority’s conclusion that because of Commonwealth v. Field, 490 Pa. 519, 417 A.2d 160 (1980), we must affirm. But for me, Field is neither a persuasive precedent, nor one that forecloses further attack on the constitutional validity of the statute creating the crime of homicide by vehicle.
If I don’t find Field persuasive, so much the worse for me, you may say. And yet, if we are to be content with precedent, we shall become dull indeed. The law will never grow unless we express our doubts. Courts, when they *360exchange opinions, should regard themselves as friends engaged in conversation. That way, their propositions will become more accurate, and command not only obedience but respect.
In any case, so believing, I venture here to discuss two difficulties I have with Field, which make me find it not persuasive, and to explain why I think it doesn’t foreclose further constitutional attack.
-1-
The first difficulty I have with Field is that its announced premise, if not clearly wrong, is at least not clearly right.
Field’s reasoning may be summarized as follows: To prove the crime of homicide by vehicle, the Commonwealth must prove that a death occurred because the defendant violated a provision of the Vehicle Code. This means that the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant’s conduct was “culpable.” To find what “culpable” means, one must look to the provision of the Vehicle Code that the defendant is charged with having violated. Upon so looking, one will find that “culpable” means that the defendant “knew, or should have known,” what he had done. 490 Pa. at 524-25, 417 A.2d at 163.
I have looked as instructed. But I am unable to find what the Supreme Court says it found.
In Field the defendant was charged with having violated Section 3703 of the Vehicle Code. Section 3703 provides that
[n]o person shall drive any vehicle except a human-powered vehicle upon a sidewalk or sidewalk area except upon a permanent or duly authorized temporary driveway. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3703.
Looking to this provision, I find no requirement that the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant “knew, or should have known,” that he was driving on a sidewalk. The provision seems to me to say that the Commonwealth does not have to prove anything about the defendant’s state of mind or the extent of his knowledge, but only that an *361event occurred—that the defendant was driving on a sidewalk.
No one can quarrel with the proposition that to find how “culpable” must be the conduct of a defendant charged with homicide by vehicle, one must look to the provision of the Vehicle Code that the defendant is charged with having violated. The difficulty arises when one applies this proposition. For some provisions of the Vehicle Code do not require the Commonwealth to prove the defendant’s state of mind or the extent of his knowledge, but only that an event occurred, while other provisions do require proof of state of mind or extent of knowledge. Section 3703, involved in Field, is an example of the first sort of provision. Section 3323(b), which is involved in the present case, is an example of the second sort of provision. Section 3323(b) provides that “[ajfter having stopped, the driver shall yield the right-of-way .... to any vehicle .... approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute a hazard . . . . ” 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3323(b). To prove a violation of this provision, the Commonwealth must prove the defendant’s state of mind or the extent of his knowledge. For one is not required to yield the right-of-way if one is justified in believing that with reasonable care, it will be possible to cross safely in front of an approaching vehicle. E.g., Pokusa v. Taylor, 409 Pa. 41, 185 A.2d 331 (1962); Dougherty v. Merchants’ Baking Co., 313 Pa. 557, 169 A. 753 (1934); Wynkoop v. McLendon, 208 Pa. Superior Ct. 81, 220 A.2d 904 (1966); Brodsky v. Bockman, 197 Pa. Superior Ct. 94, 176 A.2d 924 (1962); Merkel v. Janiszewski, 180 Pa. Superior Ct. 71, 117 A.2d 795 (1955).
Thus, if one does as instructed by Field, and determines the “culpability” of a defendant charged with homicide by vehicle by looking to the provision of the Vehicle Code he is charged with having violated, one reaches an extraordinary result. Sometimes, to prove culpability, the Commonwealth will only have to prove an event; other times, it will have to prove state of mind. That can’t be right. Indeed, Field says it isn’t right. For it says that the Commonwealth must *362always prove that if the defendant didn’t know what he was doing, at least he “should have known.” But how did the Supreme Court reach this conclusion? Its only answer is to refer us to Section 3703 of the Vehicle Code, which says nothing at all about the Commonwealth having to prove that the defendant “should have known” what he was doing, that is, that he was driving on the sidewalk.
Two solutions to this difficulty may be imagined.
The first solution is to conclude that the Supreme Court has decided that Section 3703 of the Vehicle Code does require proof of state of mind, even though the section doesn’t seem to say that. This is a possible conclusion. For the “mere omission from a criminal enactment of any mention of intent should not necessarily be construed as dispensing with it.” Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 250, 72 S.Ct. 240, 243, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1951). Thus, in construing Section 1574(a) of the Vehicle Code, the Supreme Court has found lack of knowledge a defense. Moyer Automobile License Case, 359 Pa. 536, 59 A.2d 927 (1948); accord, Jenks v. Commonwealth, Department, of Transportation, 6 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 546, 296 A.2d 526 (1972). It is nevertheless not a conclusion that is clearly right. For when the legislature intends to require proof of state of mind, it knows how to make its intent plain. Perhaps the legislature did intend to require that to convict a defendant of any —every—summary offense under the Vehicle Code, the Commonwealth must prove the defendant’s state of mind. But if so, it certainly expressed its intent obliquely. Nor is it apparent why the Vehicle Code should be so different in this respect from the Crimes Code, which permits conviction of a summary offense without proof of state of mind. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 305(a).
The second solution is to conclude that the Supreme Court has decided that a distinction must be drawn. If the Commonwealth is prosecuting the defendant for a summary offense, such as driving on a sidewalk, it need only prove that the defendant did drive on the sidewalk. But if the Commonwealth is prosecuting the defendant for homicide by *363vehicle, it must not only prove that he did drive on the sidewalk but also, that he knew or at least “should have known” what he was doing. This too is a possible conclusion. Accepting it would preserve the apparent distinction between those provisions of the Vehicle Code that do not— or do not seem to—require proof of state of mind and those that do require it. But again, it is not a conclusion that is clearly right. For nothing in the statute creating the offense of homicide by vehicle suggests that the legislature had any such notion.
.....2-
The second difficulty I have with Field is that it effects a major change in the law, without acknowledging the change, much less justifying it.
In thinking about “culpability,” it is helpful to distinguish among four different levels of criminal liability.
The first level of criminal liability is vicarious absolute liability for the act of another. In Commonwealth v. Koczwara, 397 Pa. 575, 155 A.2d 825 (1959), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 848, 80 S.Ct. 1624, 4 L.Ed.2d 1731 (1960), the Supreme Court held that the legislature could constitutionally provide a criminal penalty based on vicarious absolute liability. In Koczwara the defendant was the holder of a liquor license. He was convicted as the result of sales to minors, by a bartender employed by him, but outside his presence and without his knowledge. In upholding the conviction, the Court held that vicarious absolute liability, which is based on the tort doctrine of respondeat superior, must be limited to “petty misdemeanors involving only light monetary fines.” Id., 397 Pa. at 585, 155 A.2d at 830.
The second level of criminal liability is generally referred to as “absolute liability,” or “strict liability.” Imposition of absolute liability requires proof that the defendant himself did something—in other words, proof of an event—but it does not require proof that he knew what he was doing. This is the sort of liability the Crimes Code establishes for summary offenses in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, and, apart from the questions raised by Field, *364is the sort I should have supposed applied to summary offenses under the Vehicle Code.
Although not acknowledged in Field, the distinction between these first two levels of criminal liability is clearly recognized in Commonwealth v. Koczwara, supra 397 Pa. at 583-85, 155 A.2d at 829-30.
Skipping for the moment the third level, we come to the fourth level of criminal liability. At this level are all of the different sorts of culpability defined by section 302 of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 302. These include common law mens rea and criminal negligence.1 By putting them all at the same level, I am not suggesting that the differences among them—for example, the difference between acting intentionally and acting recklessly—are never important, only that they are not important here.
Returning now to the third level of criminal liability: As I read Field, and also Commonwealth v. Houtz, 496 Pa. 344, 437 A.2d 385 (1981), the Supreme Court has defined a level of criminal liability for homicide by vehicle that comes between levels two and four as I have just described them. Apparently, this level of culpability corresponds to ordinary, or civil, negligence. At least, I so conclude from the Supreme Court’s use in both Field and Houtz of the phrase *365“knew or should have known,” and also, from the discussion in Field of what a “reasonable driver” should have known.
I am unaware of any other criminal offense in Pennsylvania for which ordinary negligence is the required level of liability.2 Surely, such a change in the law should not be made except with the fullest explanation of its necessity.
On its face, the crime of homicide by vehicle appears to result from a confusion of the criminal with the civil law. If some one has been guilty of ordinary negligence, he may be required to compensate the victim by an action in trespass. But to label him, not only a tortfeasor but a “criminal killer”—for that is how one convicted of homicide by vehicle is labeled—seems to me to serve no useful purpose. It doesn’t compensate the victim. It won’t deter anyone. (The threat of criminal sanctions may deter intentional conduct, but not conduct only ordinarily negligent.) It can only humiliate the defendant and inflict upon him the economic losses and damage to reputation incident to having a crimi*366nal record. See Commonwealth v. Malone, 244 Pa. Superior Ct. 62, 68-69, 366 A.2d 584, 587-88 (1976) (discussing the effects of a criminal record).
In addition, the crime of homicide by vehicle seems to render nugatory the crime of involuntary manslaughter. The penalty for both crimes is the same. Thus a defendant only ordinarily negligent is subject to the same criminal sanction as. one grossly negligent. Why should a district attorney be concerned with seeking a conviction of involuntary manslaughter, when a conviction of homicide by vehicle is so much easier to get? (In the present case, the evidence was too thin to support a finding of gross negligence, and appellant was properly acquitted of involuntary manslaughter, but it wasn’t too thin to support a finding of ordinary negligence.)
I have already discussed the confusion of purpose that underlies the crime of homicide by vehicle, in concurrence in Commonwealth v. Barone, 276 Pa. Superior Ct. 282, 300-334, 419 A.2d 457, 467-485 (1980), where I was joined by Judge HOFFMAN. I only refer to it again because nothing said in Field or Houtz dispels it.
-3-
When appellant was tried, neither Field nor Barone had been decided. Before his trial, appellant filed a motion in the lower court asserting that the statute creating the crime of homicide by vehicle, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3732, was unconstitutional, and that the count charging him with homicide by vehicle should therefore be quashed. The court denied the motion, and in its charge, read the statute, along with the statutory provisions regarding the duty to stop at a stop sign, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3323(b), and involuntary manslaughter, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2504. The court did not charge that to convict appellant, the jury had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he “knew, or should have known, [that] he engaged in the conduct claimed to be in violation of . . . section [3323(b)] of the Vehicle Code.”
Under Field, the lower court should have so. charged. Because Field had not been decided, I should not regard *367appellant’s failure to request such a charge as constituting a waiver. If appellant were asking for a new trial, at which he would have the benefit of such a charge, I should vote to grant him one.
But appellant has asked only for a discharge. As indicated by the majority opinion, he offers two different arguments in support of this request. I agree with the majority that appellant’s argument, that he should be discharged because he was not separately charged with a Vehicle Code violation, has been decided against him in Commonwealth v. Wilkinson, 278 Pa. Superior Ct. 490, 420 A.2d 647 (1980). I also agree with the majority that appellant’s other argument, that the statute creating the crime of homicide by vehicle is unconstitutional because it provides for substantial penalties including imprisonment up to five years, and does grave damage to the convicted person’s reputation, on proof of strict liability only, has been decided against him in Field. For whatever else may be said about Field, it makes plain that homicide by vehicle is not a strict liability offense.
Perhaps I pursue a lost cause—although if a rational jurisprudence has become a lost cause, we’re in trouble deep indeed. But given my difficulties with Field, I remain unpersuaded of the constitutional validity of the statute enacting the crime of homicide by vehicle. That doesn’t mean the statute’s validity may be decided in this case. Both the Supreme Court and this court have repeatedly held that even constitutional issues are waived when not properly preserved. But it is appropriate to note that the Court has considered only two constitutional issues that were properly preserved: first, whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague, Commonwealth v. Burt, 490 Pa. 173, 415 A.2d 89 (1980); and second, whether the statute is unconstitutional because it provides for imprisonment of up to five years on proof of strict liability only, Commonwealth v. Field, supra. Whether the statute is unconstitutional because it provides for imprisonment of up to five years upon proof of ordinary negligence only is an issue that in my opinion remains open. I hope we shall decide it another day.

. In the context of the criminal law, “negligence” is a slippery word. As defined by the Model Penal Code § 202(2)(d), also by our Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 302(b)(4), and the codes of many other states, “negligence” is something more than “ordinary” or “simple” or “civil” negligence. One must be aware that a “substantial and unjustifiable risk” exists, and one’s failure to perceive the risk must represent a “gross deviation from the standard of care [of] a reasonable person.” Although for clarity this is often called “criminal negligence,” for the most part the various sections of the Model Penal Code and our Crimes Code rely on the definitions in their preliminary provisions and refer only to “negligence.” One exception in our Crimes Code is the definition of involuntary manslaughter, which requires action in a “grossly negligent manner.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2504. “Grossly negligent” is not defined in the Code. It is not clear whether gross negligence for purposes of involuntary manslaughter is something more than negligence as defined by § 302(b)(4) or whether it is the same, “gross” being added merely to reinforce the distinction between it and ordinary or civil negligence. See Toll, Pennsylvania Crimes Code Annotated § 2504 Reporter’s Comment (1974).

. There do appear to be several other states where ordinary negligence is the predicate for offenses similar to homicide by vehicle. See B. Williams, “State Laws on Homicide by Vehicle,” Nat’l Comm, on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, Traffic Laws Commentary, October, 1978, pp. 1-19. For example, in Connecticut the definition of negligent homicide with a motor vehicle is as follows:
A person is guilty of negligent homicide with a motor vehicle when in consequence of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle he causes the death of another person.
Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. § 53a -58a.
This is a class B misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of 6 months in jail. Another offense, misconduct with a motor vehicle, requires criminal negligence or intoxication, and is classified as a felony. Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. § 53a 57. Connecticut cases have held that the negligence required for the misdemeanor of negligent homicide is only simple negligence, and it is on that basis that the two offenses differ. E.g., State v. Wilkinson, 176 Conn. 451, 408 A.2d 232 (1979); State v. Waterhouse, 35 Conn.Sup. 519, 394 A.2d 205 (1977).
Another state with two separate offenses based on death resulting from operation of a motor vehicle is Hawaii. One offense is a felony predicated on negligence, the other, a misdemeanor predicated on simple negligence. Hawaii Rev.Stat. §§ 707-703, 707-704. The definition of “negligence” is found in § 702-206(4) and, like our Crimes Code § 302(b)(4), is taken from the Model Penal Code. In contrast, “simple negligence” is defined in § 707-704, which suggests that in Hawaii, it has no other application in the criminal law.