Added
3-9-09
Appeals Decision
- Graham
This
case is an example of a lack of substantial evidence
defense.
This Sacramento defendant
won his appeal.
Because
(so
far) it is an unpublished decision, the Graham
decision cannot be cited as precedent in most
California courts, except maybe in Sacramento
County. And, because the decision came from
a lower-level appeals court (appeals of
infractions are typically handled by an Appellate
Division within the county's Superior Court,
whereas appeals of felonies are handled by the
District Court of Appeals, a separate entity), its
weight is further diminished. But there is
nothing stopping other defendants from using the
same arguments Graham did or from citing the same
published cases the Appellate Division relied
upon.
The appeal decision below
was re-typed from the original document.
Edits or explanatory notes by the editor are in double
square brackets [[ ]].
These materials may be freely copied and distributed, so
long as credit is given to highwayrobbery.net .
Many other cases and /or transcripts are available - see
the Index
to Transcripts, Briefs, and Court Decisions.
Click on these links for other documents in the Graham
appeal (these are in chronological order):
Opening
Brief
Image
of Actual Decision Document
Text of Decision (below)
Also, read the Moore case, and the Bohl case, other successful
appeals of Sacramento tickets.
SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
APPELLATE DIVISION
DATE/TIME FEBRUARY 20,
2009
DEPT. NO 12A
JUDGE MARIANNE 0. GILLIARD -
PRESIDING
MICHAEL SWEET
GRETA FALL
CLERK BARBARA WILSON
BAILIFF DON HAWLEY
REPORTER NCR
Appellate Division No. : 2008049021
Superior Court No . : 2008049021
.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Plaintiff/Respondent
PRESENT: DAN OLSEN
vs.
[[ ]] GRAHAM PRO PER
Defendant/Appellant
Nature of Proceedings : APPEAL
FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT
The above entitled cause came
on for oral argument on FEBRUARY 20, 2009. The
matter was argued to the Court and taken under
submission. The Court now rules as follows:
Appellant received a citation
from an automated enforcement traffic violation
system which produced photographs that did not
show the condition of the signal light controlling
appellant’s entry into the intersection when
appellant entered the intersection. Without
photographs showing appellant committing the
violation the system must be proven reliable
beyond a reasonable doubt in order for the People
to meet their burden of proof.
Appellate courts utilize the
substantial evidence test to determine whether the
prosecution has introduced sufficient evidence to
meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable
doubt. (People v. Augborne (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th
362, 371.) In determining whether substantial
evidence supports the conviction, the appellate
court reviews the entire record, draws all
reasonable inferences in favor of the judgment,
and determines whether a rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Hughes
(2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 357 (citing People v. Raley
(1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 889)) People’s Exhibit
1, which showed appellant’s vehicle behind the
limit line, also showed that the light controlling
the cross traffic was red. People’s Exhibit 2,
which showed that appellant’s vehicle had traveled
into the intersection, showed that the light
controlling the cross traffic had cycled to green.
If Exhibit 1 had shown that the light controlling
the cross traffic was green, it would have been
reasonable for the trial court to infer that the
light controlling appellant’s entry into the
intersection was red when he crossed the limit
line, and that the system was properly working.
However, it did not. And, the officer provided no
explanation for the condition of the lights
controlling cross traffic.
Given the evidence adduced at appellant's trial,
this Panel finds that a rational trier of fact
could not reasonably find, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that the light controlling appellant’s
entry into the intersection was red when he first
crossed the limit line. Therefore, we find that
substantial evidence does not support appellant’s
convictions
The conviction is reversed with
directions to dismiss the complaint. (People v.
Kriss (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 913, 921.)
|
---------------------------------
RED LIGHT
CAMERAS
www.highwayrobbery.net
www.highwayrobbery.net
|