SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ORDERS NEW TRIAL FOR MAN CONVICTED OF FLEEING AND ELUDING, FINDING THAT TRIAL JUDGE PREVENTED HIM FROM ASSERTING A STATUTORY DEFENSE

Attorney Noel’s client was charged with fleeing or attempting to elude the police after fleeing from a traffic stop.  During the course of the traffic stop, the conduct of the police – namely, becoming belligerent toward Attorney Noel’s client, punching his car window and reaching for their firearms – caused Attorney Noel’s client to feel very threatened and to flee from the traffic stop in his car.  At his jury trial, Attorney Noel’s client attempted to assert a statutory defense to the fleeing and eluding charge that his flight was the result of a good faith concern for his personal safety, but was prevented from doing so because the trial court judge did not believe his version of events.  Specifically, Attorney Noel’s client was prevented from testifying that he was afraid of the police due to their actions during the traffic stop and that is why he fled.  Attorney Noel’s client, who had no prior criminal record, was convicted of a felony offense.

Attorney Noel appealed her client’s conviction arguing that the trial court wrongly prevented him from asserting the statutory personal safety defense and, accordingly, deprived him of his constitutional rights to due process, to a fair trial, to testify in his defense and to present a defense.

In a published opinion, the Superior Court agreed with Attorney Noel that the trial judge was wrong to substitute its own credibility determinations for that of the jury and that the trial judge deprived Attorney Noel’s client of his constitutional right to present a defense by refusing to allow him to testify at trial regarding his fear when he fled from police.  Accordingly, the Superior Court vacated her client’s conviction and remanded for a new trial.  On remand, the Commonwealth opted not to retry Attorney Noel’s client.