This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Filed June 14, 2005
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 &
Joshua E. Makori,
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.
June 19, 2004, appellant was traveling eastbound on Highway 7 in
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.
D E C I S I O N
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 (
Any speeds in excess of posted limits is prima
facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent.
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 (
We conclude the evidence was sufficient to find appellant guilty of speeding in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169.14 (2004).