This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).







State of Minnesota,





Joshua Makori,



Filed June 14, 2005


Hudson, Judge


McLeod County District Court

File No. T3-04-4190


Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101; and


Jody Winters, Gavin, Olson & Winters, Ltd., 1017 Hennepin Avenue, Glencoe, Minnesota 55336 (for respondent)


Joshua E. Makori, 512 East 99th Street, Bloomington, Minnesota 55420 (pro se appellant)


            Considered and decided by Stoneburner, Presiding Judge; Hudson, Judge; and Dietzen, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N


            Appellant Joshua Makori challenges his conviction for speeding arguing that there is insufficient evidence to support the conviction.  Because credibility of witnesses is a question for the factfinder and the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction, we affirm.


            On June 19, 2004, appellant was traveling eastbound on Highway 7 in Silver Lake, McLeod County, Minnesota.  The posted speed limit in that area is 45 miles per hour.  Officer Kenneth Bauer was traveling in the westbound lane.  Based on visual observation, he activated his radar and determined that appellant’s vehicle was traveling 62 miles per hour.  Officer Bauer turned on his lights, made a u-turn, stopped appellant’s vehicle, and issued a speeding ticket to him.  The state charged appellant with speeding in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169.14 (2004).

            At the bench trial, Officer Bauer was the only witness for the state.  Officer Bauer testified that he is a qualified radar operator who has received in excess of 40 hours of training.  He further testified that he had conducted two calibration tests on the radar unit that morning and determined that the radar unit was working properly.  The radar unit was tested again at the end of his shift and found to be working properly.  He also testified that there was a gap of approximately 600–700 feet between the front of appellant’s vehicle and the next vehicle, and that based on the radar results, appellant was driving 62 miles per hour.  The state introduced two exhibits to corroborate Officer Bauer’s testimony.  Appellant testified but did not call additional witnesses or introduce exhibits.  Appellant testified that he believed that the speed limit in that area was 55 miles per hour.

            After considering the testimony, exhibits and arguments of both parties, the district court found appellant guilty of speeding and imposed a fine of $110.00.  This appeal follows.


In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, this court’s review is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the factfinder to reach the verdict that it did.  State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989).  The reviewing court must assume the factfinder believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.  State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).  The reviewing court will not disturb the verdict if the factfinder, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.  State v. Alton, 432 N.W.2d 754, 756 (Minn. 1988).  The credibility of witnesses and weight of their testimony is a question for the factfinder.  State v. Travica, 398 N.W.2d 666, 670 (Minn. App. 1987).

Any speeds in excess of posted limits is prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent.  Minn. Stat. § 169.14, subd. 2(a) (2004).  Radar is an accepted method of proving speed.  See State v. Aanerud, 374 N.W.2d 491, 492 (Minn. App. 1985) (holding that evidence was sufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction for speeding based on radar readings and the officer’s testimony); see also State v. Dow, 352 N.W.2d 125, 126 (Minn. App. 1984) (stating that radar results are reliable if the unit is properly tested and operated).  In prosecutions in which the rate of speed is relevant, radar evidence is admissible provided that the officer is sufficiently trained, testifies to the manner in which the device was operated, the operation was not distorted by outside sources, and the device was tested by an accurate and reliable external mechanism.  Minn. Stat. § 169.14, subd. 10(a) (2004).

            Appellant’s argument that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction is meritless.  Notably, appellant did not testify that he was going some speed other than 62 miles per hour.  Therefore, even if the speed limit had been 55 miles per hour as appellant believed, he would still be guilty of speeding.  The district court credited the testimony of Officer Bauer that appellant was driving 62 miles per hour in a 45-miles-per-hour zone.  We defer to credibility determinations of the district court.

Appellant also argues that Officer Bauer wrongly targeted him when others driving in front and behind him were also speeding.  He  argues that the radar recorded the speed of another vehicle.  Officer Bauer testified that there was no vehicle directly in front of appellant’s vehicle, and that the radar reading was locked on appellant’s vehicle and was not interfered with by other vehicles or obstructions.  Appellant presented no evidence to refute Officer Bauer’s testimony, the radar readings, or the radar calibration.  Nor did appellant present any evidence contesting Officer Bauer’s qualifications to operate the radar equipment.  On this record, the district court found Officer Bauer’s testimony to be credible.  The credibility of witnesses and weight of their testimony is a question for the factfinder.  State v. Pedersen, 382 N.W.2d 559, 560 (Minn. App. 1986).  Accordingly, we will not disturb the district court’s determination.

We conclude the evidence was sufficient to find appellant guilty of speeding in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169.14 (2004).