|
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(so far) it is an unpublished decision, the Graham decision cannot be cited as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
|
