Commonwealth v. Sow

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed Abubakarr Sow’s judgment of sentence for obstructing the administration of law and driving under the influence. The court held that the trial court properly refused Sow’s proposed jury instruction concerning an officer’s duty to exhibit a warrant because the instruction was misleading and irrelevant to the elements of the obstruction offense. The court also concluded that Sow was not prejudiced by the refusal.

Holdings

1. The requested instruction, based on dicta in Shovlin concerning arrest warrants, did not accurately state the law applicable to this case and was irrelevant to the elements and factual issues of Sow's obstruction charge.
2. The trial court did not err in refusing the proposed instruction, and Sow was not entitled to a new trial because the instruction was misleading and irrelevant and he was not prejudiced by its omission.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that an officer executing a warrant must exhibit the warrant upon the defendant's demand.
2. Whether the refusal to give the requested instruction prejudiced Sow or warranted a new trial on the obstruction charge.

Disposition

affirmed