In oral argument before a three‑judge panel, defense counsel Mary Rogers acknowledged that her client was guilty of motor‑vehicle homicide but disputed that the facts supported manslaughter or higher culpability. Rogers told the court there was limited testimony of lane‑weaving — a single witness described the defendant as moving "a little bit to the left and then he jerked right" — and urged the panel not to import more egregious driving conduct from case law that involved repeated lane crossings or drag racing.

The prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney Melissa Johnson, stressed instead the totality of the evidence: driving at very high speed (argument referenced figures up to "86 miles an hour"), erratic lane adjustments, flipping off motorists, and data from reconstruction experts showing the defendant had at least 20 seconds and opportunities to brake. "He was barreling down on her for at least 5 seconds knowing she can't do anything about it," Johnson said, urging the court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth.

The panel questioned whether road conditions and a large pothole — and the presence or absence of warning signs and police traffic control — affected what a reasonable driver should have perceived. Defense counsel argued the pothole and an earlier police response had slowed traffic and could have created a unique hazard not fully attributable to the defendant’s conduct; the prosecutor countered that other motorists avoided injury and that the defendant’s speed and failure to brake were critical. The Commonwealth also noted toxicology showing multiple substances including fentanyl and marijuana, and discussed the sentencing court’s carefully crafted post‑release supervision and conditions.

After questions from the panel about duplicative charges and sentencing theory, both sides rested their oral argument and the court took the case under advisement.