Court Opinion

ID: 9878447
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 17:19:16.904085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:36.758421
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY MOULTON, J.: I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction, and concur with its decision to affirm the judgment of sentence. However, I do not join the majority’s analysis of the statutory interpretation question briefed by the parties, as I believe it is unnecessary to a proper disposition of this case. Appellant was charged with violating 75 Pa.C.S. § 3733 under two different theories — failing to bring her vehicle to a stop after being directed to stop; and fleeing after being directed to stop. While both theories were submitted to the jury,'the jury instructions delivered by the trial court required a finding that Appellant “was aware of the officer’s signal to stop and refused to do so,” N.T., 9/12/16, at 119. Accordingly, we need not consider the question whether the statute’s reference to “a pursuing police officer” modifies “otherwise flees,” because no one contends that it modifies “fails or refuses to ... stop.”