Attorney plans appeal of Superior Court ruling
The attorney for a Fayette City man accused of drunkenly hitting a state police trooper on his way to work said he would likely appeal to the state Supreme Court to have charges against his client thrown out. Attorney Samuel Davis said Wednesday the recent Superior Court opinion reinstating charges of aggravated assault while driving under the influence of alcohol against Donald Earl Miller “warrants and perhaps mandates an appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.”
Miller, 61, allegedly had a blood-alcohol content of .119 percent when he hit Jeffrey Jones along Route 51 on June 19, 2000. Jones was riding a motorcycle to work at the Uniontown barracks when Miller allegedly turned in front of him and hit him. State police allege that Miller flagged down a motorist to call 911, but then left the accident.
He was arrested two hours later and reportedly told police he did not see Jones.
Davis successfully sought to have the assault charge, along with careless driving and failure to turn/signal thrown out after a hearing before Judge Gerald R. Solomon. The judge ruled that there was not enough evidence to warrant those charges. He also threw out two DUI charges that involved controlled substances.
District Attorney Nancy D. Vernon appealed Solomon’s decision, and in an opinion handed down Tuesday, the Superior Court reinstated the assault, careless driving and failure to signal charges. In doing so, the court noted that it was up to jurors to decide if Miller is guilty of assault.
Although Davis said he had not fully discussed the matter of an appeal with Miller, he said that he would most likely ask the Supreme Court to review the case.
“It appears to me that the Superior Court ignored the findings of fact of the lower court. Judge Solomon did an exhaustive review of the facts and wrote a complete opinion,” said Davis.
The defense attorney said that to charge someone with aggravated assault while DUI, there needs to be gross negligence – legally defined as reckless disregard for the safety of others.
“There needs to be a settling of the law, and the Supreme Court can do that,” said Davis.
The state’s highest court is not bound to hear the case, said Davis. He will file the paperwork asking the court to review the case. If the Supreme Court decides that the case should be heard, Davis said he and prosecutors will have to file briefs and then possibly have oral arguments before the court.
“It’s unfortunate for all parties because this case will now go through the system, and will not be decided for another year or perhaps two,” said Davis.