Summary
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that homicide by vehicle and homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence are mutually exclusive offenses and do not merge for sentencing purposes. Applying its lesser-included-offense analysis, the Court affirmed the imposition of consecutive sentences because each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not. A dissent argued that the defendant should receive only one homicide sentence for the single death.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether homicide by vehicle is a lesser included offense of homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence for purposes of sentencing merger.
- Whether consecutive sentences for homicide by vehicle and homicide by vehicle/DUI constitute an illegal sentence when both offenses arise from one death.
Holdings
- Homicide by vehicle is not a lesser included offense of homicide by vehicle/DUI because the offenses contain mutually exclusive statutory elements; therefore, the sentences do not merge.
- The court declined to deviate from the Anderson merger rule and held that the fact that one death supported elements of both offenses does not require merger when the offenses retain mutually exclusive elements.
Key quotations
“Due to the mutually exclusive nature of the statutory elements, we hold that homicide by vehicle is not a lesser included offense of homicide by vehicle/DUI and therefore the Superior Court properly affirmed the imposition of separate sentences.” (1056)
“whether the elements of the lesser crime are all included within the elements of the greater crime, and the greater offense includes at least one additional element which is different, in which case the sentences merge, or whether both crimes require proof of at least one element which the other does not, in which case the sentences do not merge.” (1058)
“The fact that the death of the same individual supported elements in both offenses does not warrant the merging of the sentences imposed when other mutually exclusive elements of the crimes remain.” (1060)
Factual background
On September 30, 1995, a motor vehicle accident involving a vehicle driven by Collins killed one passenger and seriously injured another. Collins was convicted of homicide by vehicle and homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence, among other offenses. The sentencing court imposed consecutive sentences for the two homicide offenses because their statutory elements were mutually exclusive.
Procedural history
After a jury trial, Collins was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, driving under the influence, homicide by vehicle, homicide by vehicle/DUI, recklessly endangering another person, and several summary offenses. The court of common pleas imposed consecutive sentences for homicide by vehicle/DUI, homicide by vehicle, and recklessly endangering another person, finding the remaining offenses merged for sentencing purposes. The Superior Court affirmed based on Commonwealth v. Neupert, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted allocatur and affirmed.