## Facts

- Peter David Moyer operated a motorboat on the Lehigh River on July 19, 1992, near a railroad trestle where people were swimming.
- Eric Hennigh operated a jet ski at about the same speed as Moyer’s boat, roughly 40 feet to Moyer’s right.
- A swimmer on or near the trestle, Richard Moore, swung a long stick at Hennigh, striking him or the jet ski and causing Hennigh to lose control.
- The jet ski suddenly veered into the path of Moyer’s boat, and the two watercraft collided; Hennigh died from the collision-related injuries.
- An eyewitness testified the jet ski crossed into Moyer’s path “within a split second” and that Moyer had no time to avoid impact.
- Moyer submitted to a breath test indicating a BAC of about 0.18%, and officers observed signs of intoxication.
- Moyer was charged with involuntary manslaughter, homicide by watercraft while under the influence, reckless/careless operation of a watercraft, and operating a watercraft under the influence.
- After the preliminary hearing, Moyer sought habeas corpus relief asserting the Commonwealth failed to establish a prima facie case; the trial court denied relief, and an interlocutory appeal followed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence at the preliminary hearing to establish a prima facie case that Moyer’s conduct legally caused Hennigh’s death for involuntary manslaughter, homicide by watercraft while under the influence, and reckless/careless operation resulting in death.
2. Whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence at the preliminary hearing to establish a prima facie case that Moyer operated a watercraft under the influence of alcohol, regardless of causation of the death.

## Decision

- The court reversed the denial of habeas corpus as to involuntary manslaughter, homicide by watercraft while under the influence, and reckless/careless operation, holding the Commonwealth failed to establish prima facie causation for those charges.
- The court affirmed the bind-over on the charge of operating a watercraft under the influence, holding the Commonwealth established a prima facie case for that offense.
- The court emphasized the lack of evidence that Moyer could have avoided the collision given the split-second intrusion of the jet ski into his path and the absence of proof on reaction time, stopping distance, or feasible evasive action.
- The court held that proof of intoxication, without competent evidence connecting the intoxication or manner of operation to the fatal collision, did not satisfy the causation element for the homicide-related and reckless-operation counts.

## Legal Principles

- At a preliminary hearing, the Commonwealth must present evidence that, if accepted as true, would warrant a finding that each element of the charged offense is established.
- For homicide-type offenses, the prima facie showing must include competent evidence of factual and legal causation; speculation is insufficient.
- An independent, intervening act may break the causal chain where the evidence shows the defendant lacked a meaningful opportunity to avoid the harm.
- Evidence of intoxication can support an operating-under-the-influence charge, but intoxication alone does not establish causation for a resulting death absent evidence linking impairment or operation to the fatal event.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the homicide-related and reckless-operation charges at the prima facie stage because the Commonwealth did not present competent evidence that Moyer’s intoxication or operation caused the death in light of a sudden intervening event, but it permitted prosecution for operating a watercraft under the influence based on strong evidence of intoxicated operation.


Commonwealth v. Moyer, 436 Pa. Super. 442, 648 A.2d 42 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994)