Summary
The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a speeding conviction under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3362(a)(1). The court held that when a vehicle is shown to have been operated above 35 miles per hour in a posted 35-mile-per-hour zone, the Commonwealth need not separately prove that the location was an urban district. A rebuttable presumption of regularity applied to the official posting and zoning, and the defendant did not rebut it.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support appellant's conviction for exceeding the 35-mile-per-hour limit under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3362(a)(1) when the Commonwealth proved that appellant exceeded 35 miles per hour in a posted 35-mile-per-hour zone but did not separately prove that the location was an urban district.
- Whether the posting of a 35-mile-per-hour speed-limit sign creates a rebuttable presumption that the location is an urban district or other properly zoned section.
Holdings
- The Commonwealth need not separately prove that the speeding occurred in an urban district when it proves that the defendant operated a vehicle in excess of 35 miles per hour in a properly posted 35-mile-per-hour zone.
- Appellant failed to rebut the presumption that the offense occurred in a properly zoned urban district, so the trial court correctly found the evidence sufficient.
Key quotations
“The portion of the statute referring to any urban district is not an essential element of the offense.” (at 572)
“As a result, the Commonwealth need not prove appellant was exceeding the 35 mile per hour maximum speed limit in an urban district, but it need only show, as it did, appellant operated a vehicle in excess of 35 miles per hour in a 35 mile per hour zone.” (at 573)
“We know of no appellate case which holds that in addition to the proper posting of a speed limit sign the Commonwealth must also prove that the officials responsible for the posting fulfilled their responsibility in designating the zone as required by statute and highway regulations.” (at 575)
Factual background
Appellant was found driving a vehicle at a speed exceeding 35 miles per hour in a posted 35-mile-per-hour zone. The Commonwealth presented evidence that appellant was the driver and that he exceeded the posted speed limit. Appellant argued that the Commonwealth also had to prove that the location was an urban district within the meaning of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3362(a)(1).
Procedural history
The trial court determined that appellant was guilty of exceeding the 35-mile-per-hour speed limit and imposed the costs of prosecution and a $59 fine. Appellant appealed, arguing that the Commonwealth failed to prove that the offense occurred in an urban district. The Superior Court held that proof that appellant exceeded 35 miles per hour in a posted 35-mile-per-hour zone was sufficient and affirmed the judgment of sentence.