Commonwealth v. Starry, M.

PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 13th day of March, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are: (1) Whether the rationale and holding in Commonwealth v. Segida, 604 Pa. 103 , 985 A.2d 871 (2009), applies to a charge of driving under the influence brought pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(c), which has a statutory requirement that the defendant have an alcohol concentration in his or her blood or breath of.16% or greater within two hours after driving, operating or being in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle. (2) Whether the Superior Court erred by finding that the Commonwealth presented prima facie evidence that Petitioner's blood alcohol concentration was .16% or higher within two hours after she drove, operated or was in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle. (3) Whether the Superior Court erred in finding that the Commonwealth presented prima facie evidence to satisfy 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(g)(1), which requires the Commonwealth to show "good cause explaining why the chemical test sample could not be obtained within two hours."