Appeal Decision - Graham - Illegal Red Light Cameras

Because (so far) it is an unpublished decision, the Graham decision cannot be cited as precedent in most California courts, except maybe in Sacramento County.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