In a recent precedential decision, Commonwealth v. Kling, 2026 PA Super 11, the Pennsylvania Superior Court made clear an important point about homicide-by-vehicle-while-DUI statute: the Commonwealth need not secure a conviction under any particular subsection of the DUI statute to sustain a conviction for homicide by vehicle while DUI. What matters is that the defendant is convicted of a DUI offense under Section 3802, and that the DUI violation was a direct and substantial cause of death.
The holding is rooted in the statutory text of the homicide-by-vehicle-while-DUI statute (75 Pa.C.S § 3735). The opinion also serves as a useful reminder—particularly for appellate practitioners—about the narrow role of weight-of-the-evidence claims and their near-certain fate on appeal.
No Requirement of a Specific DUI Subsection
The homicide-by-vehicle-while-DUI statute requires proof that a death resulted from a violation of Section 3802 and that the defendant was convicted of violating Section 3802. The statute does not require that the conviction rest on any particular DUI subsection, such as impairment-based DUI as opposed to a per se controlled-substance DUI.
In this case, the jury acquitted the defendant of the impairment-based DUI subsection (¶3802(d)(2)), while convicting him under per se controlled-substance provisions (§ 3802(d)(1)(ii), (iii)). The defendant argued that his acquittal foreclosed a homicide-by-vehicle-while-DUI conviction because the jury necessarily rejected impairment and therefore causation.
The Superior Court rejected that argument outright. The statute requires a DUI conviction—not a conviction under a specific DUI theory—and Pennsylvania law does not permit courts to draw factual inferences from acquittals. As the Court emphasized, inconsistent verdicts are tolerated precisely because juries retain the prerogative to exercise lenity or compromise. The only legally relevant fact is that the defendant was convicted of a DUI offense, not which subsection persuaded the jury.
Weight Claims: Rare, Disfavored, and Almost Never Successful
The opinion also offers a clear and candid reminder about weight-of-the-evidence claims—one that is worth revisiting for clients and lawyers alike.
Weight claims are addressed to the discretion of the trial court, not the appellate court. On appeal, the question is not whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, but whether the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting that claim. When a weight argument is grounded in witness credibility or conflicting expert testimony, appellate review is exceptionally limited.
The Court reiterated a principle that bears repeating: “[Unless the evidence is so unreliable and/or contradictory as to make any verdict based thereon pure conjecture, these types of claims are not cognizable on appellate review.” Appellate courts do not sit as a “thirteenth juror,” and they do not reweigh testimony simply because it was contested or imperfect.
For defendants considering appeal, this decision reinforces an uncomfortable truth: weight claims are among the least effective appellate arguments and should be pursued with caution and realism.
Takeaway
A homicide by vehicle while DUI conviction stands so long as there is a DUI conviction and sufficient evidence of causation—no particular DUI subsection is required. Weight claims remain an uphill battle on appeal.
For practitioners, the opinion is a reminder to focus appellate challenges on legally viable sufficiency arguments and to treat weight claims with appropriate skepticism. For clients, it underscores how much turns on trial-level proof, and how little room remains for second-guessing verdicts once a jury has spoken.