Share This Page

Evidence, statements allowed in homicide by vehicle case

| Tuesday, July 30, 2013, 7:48 p.m.

Fayette

Uniontown

Evidence, statements allowed in homicide by vehicle case

A Fayette County judge on Tuesday denied a Redstone Township man's request to have evidence and statements suppressed in a homicide by vehicle case.

Gary Lee Brackenbury Jr., 33, of 780 Montview Ave. is charged by township police with homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence of alcohol, aggravated assault and other charges in connection with an Aug. 1, 2012 crash.

Police said Brackenbury crashed his pickup into a car driven by Anthony Balosky, 35, of Republic, on Route 40 in Redstone. Balosky was pronounced dead at the scene.

In a pretrial motion, Brackenbury had sought to have evidence and statements suppressed. In addition, his attorney argued there was insufficient evidence to support the charges.

Judge Steve Leskinen held two hearings on the request. During one of the hearings, Tricia Renee Sabatula of Brownsville testified she saw a black pickup speed past her vehicle and several others just prior to the crash.

Norm Howard, a Redstone police officer who was off duty the night of the crash, testified he saw Brackenbury consume three shots of alcohol at a bar about a half hour before the accident.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.