The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has upheld the DUI conviction of Duane Patrick Stout, affirming the trial court's judgment that sufficient evidence existed to support charges of driving under the influence of controlled substances. This decision, filed on October 30, 2026, affects Stout, who was sentenced to six months of probation, including three days of house arrest, and a $1,000 fine following his conviction.

The case originated after Stout was found on the side of Interstate 83 in York County on July 6, 2024, exhibiting erratic behavior. Pennsylvania State Police Trooper John Grzymala noticed Stout performing what appeared to be martial arts moves near his vehicle, which had its hazard lights activated. The trooper conducted a welfare check that led to a series of field sobriety tests and ultimately Stout's arrest for DUI.

Stout faced multiple charges, including DUI related to the presence of controlled substances in his system. During the trial, which took place in November 2025, evidence was presented that included Stout's behavior during the traffic stop, results from field sobriety tests, and a blood test that confirmed the presence of cocaine, fentanyl, and their metabolites. Stout was convicted on three counts of DUI: one for driving under the influence of a controlled substance, one for the presence of a metabolite, and one for impaired ability.

In his appeal, Stout challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. He argued that there was no direct evidence of impaired driving, as he had not been observed driving erratically. Furthermore, he contended that the Commonwealth failed to prove that the substances in his blood were classified as Schedule II or III controlled substances under Pennsylvania law.

The trial court had previously summarized the evidence, which included testimony from Trooper Grzymala about Stout's dilated pupils, erratic speech, and movements. The trooper also noted that Stout admitted to smoking cocaine before driving. The court found that the totality of the circumstances provided sufficient evidence to conclude that Stout's ability to operate a vehicle was impaired by drug use.

Judge Murray, writing for the court, stated, "The evidence elicited at trial amply established Appellant’s drug use, as Trooper Grzymala recovered suspected cocaine from Appellant’s retainer case; Appellant admitted to smoking cocaine prior to driving; and Appellant stipulated to a lab report confirming the presence of benzoylecgonine, cocaine, fentanyl, and norfentanyl in his blood." The court ruled that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for DUI – impaired ability.

Regarding Stout's claims that the Commonwealth did not prove the classification of the drugs in his blood, the court clarified that the classification of controlled substances is a matter of law. The court noted that cocaine and fentanyl are classified as Schedule II controlled substances under Pennsylvania law, thus meeting the legal requirements for the charges against Stout.

The court concluded that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Stout operated a vehicle while under the influence of drugs. This ruling reinforces the legal standards regarding DUI convictions and the evidentiary requirements necessary to establish impairment due to drug use.

Moving forward, this ruling may have implications for similar DUI cases in Pennsylvania, particularly those involving drug use and the interpretation of evidence related to impairment. The decision clarifies the standards for proving drug impairment in DUI cases, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to support a conviction.

Stout has the option to appeal the ruling to a higher court, but it remains to be seen whether he will pursue this path. There are currently no related cases pending that could directly impact this decision.