This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2000).

 

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

CX-01-571

 

 

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

 

vs.

 

Christopher H. Smith,

Appellant.

 

Filed May 7, 2002

Affirmed

Robert H. Schumacher, Judge

 

Hennepin County District Court

File No. 01006766

 

 

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 525 Park Street, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55103; and

 

Jay M. Heffern, Minneapolis City Attorney, Lisa M. Godon, Assistant City Attorney, 300 Metropolitan Centre, 333 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for respondent)

 

Christopher H. Smith, 1450 West Cortez Street, First Floor, Chicago, IL 60622-3901 (pro se appellant)

 

Considered and decided by Hanson, Presiding Judge, Schumacher, Judge, and Poritsky, Judge.*


U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

ROBERT H. SCHUMACHER, Judge

Appellant Christopher H. Smith challenges his petty misdemeanor conviction of failing to obey a semaphore. Smith contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction and that the initial traffic stop was a result of racial profiling and therefore unconstitutional. We affirm.

FACTS

On September 4, 2000, at approximately 11:00 p.m., Minneapolis Police Officers Amy Linson and Emily Olson were on routine patrol, traveling north in a marked squad car through an alley between Portland Avenue and Oakland Avenue in the City of Minneapolis. At the end of the alley on 45th Street, they observed a red Saturn traveling northbound on Oakland fail to stop at a stop sign at 45th Street. Both officers testified that they had a clear view of the intersection. The officers activated their emergency lights and stopped the Saturn.

After the stop, the Saturn's driver, who was later identified as Smith, immediately got out of his vehicle. The officers asked Smith to get back in his vehicle and to show some identification, but he refused. The officers explained to Smith the purpose of the stop. Finally, the officers brought Smith to their squad car, performed a pat search, and took his identification out of his wallet. He was issued a ticket for failing to obey a semaphore in violation of Minn. Stat. 169.06 (2000).

A court trial was held on March 19, 2001. Smith represented himself. The district court found that the state met its burden of proof and adjudicated Smith guilty of the charged offense, a petty misdemeanor. Smith appeals.

D E C I S I O N

1. Smith contends that the district court erroneously found him guilty of failing to obey a semaphore because there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, a court's review "is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction," sufficiently supports the fact-finder's verdict. State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989). This court must ascertain whether the trier of fact could reasonably find the defendant guilty on the evidence received at trial and on the legitimate inferences that could be drawn from that evidence. State v. Johnson, 568 N.W.2d 426, 435 (Minn. 1997).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Smith's conviction, there was sufficient evidence to support the district court's finding. Both officers involved in the traffic stop testified that they observed Smith travel through the stop sign without stopping. Additionally, both officers testified that they had a clear view of the scene. Smith conceded that there is a stop sign at the intersection of 45th and Oakland but claimed he came to a stop. This court must assume the district court credited the testimony of the officers.

2. Smith also contends that the traffic stop was a result of racial profiling and was therefore unconstitutional. At trial, Smith specifically advised the district court he was not alleging that the stop was racially motivated. Consequently, the district court did not consider the issue. This court will generally not consider matters not argued and considered in the court below. Roby v. State, 547 N.W.2d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996). We therefore decline to address the issue.

Affirmed.



* Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, 10.