P. v. Goldsmith 2/28/12 CA2/3

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2012 » P. v. Goldsmith 2/28/12 CA2/3

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: B231678

Case Date: 05/09/2012

Preview:Filed 2/28/12; pub. order 3/1/12 (see end of opn.)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.

B231678 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 102693IN) (Appellate Div. No. BR048189)

CARMEN GOLDSMITH, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John R. Johnson, Commissioner. Affirmed. John J. Jackman for Defendant and Appellant. Cal Saunders, City Attorney; Best Best & Krieger, Dean R. Derleth and John D. Higginbotham, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________

INTRODUCTION Carmen Goldsmith appeals from a judgment, entered following a court trial, finding Goldsmith guilty of violating Vehicle Code 21453, subdivision (a), by failing to stop at a red light at an intersection in the City of Inglewood. Goldsmith challenges the admission into evidence of computer-generated photographs and a video of her traffic violation as unsupported by evidence that the computer operated properly. Testimony on the accuracy and reliability of computer hardware and software, however, is not required as a prerequisite to admission of computer records. There was no abuse of discretion in the trial courts admission of this evidence. Goldsmith claims that the photographs and video are hearsay and prosecution did not establish that this evidence was admissible under the business records or public records exceptions to the hearsay rule. We find, however, that the photographs and video were not hearsay, the hearsay rule did not require their exclusion from evidence, and therefore no hearsay exception was necessary to admit this evidence. Goldsmith also claims that the traffic signals yellow light interval did not conform to the requirements of Vehicle Code section 21455.7. We conclude that substantial evidence supported the trial courts factual finding that the yellow light interval of the signal conformed to the statutory requirement. We affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 13, 2009, a traffic notice to appear was issued to Carmen Goldsmith alleging that she violated Vehicle Code section 21453, subdivision (a)1 by failing to stop
1

Vehicle Code section 21453, subdivision states, in pertinent part: "(a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b). "(b) Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, a driver, after stopping as required by subdivision (a), facing a steady circular red signal, may turn right, or turn left from a one-way street onto a one-way street. A driver making that turn shall yield the

2

at a red light at the intersection of Centinela Avenue and Beach Avenue in the City of Inglewood. In a court trial, the trial court admitted evidence from a computerized automated traffic enforcement system (ATES) and convicted Goldsmith of failing to stop at a red light. The ATES at the intersection was implemented in September 2003. The police department operates the ATES, but Redflex Traffic Systems (Redflex) maintains the ATES. Dean Young, an investigator with the Inglewood Police Department, testified at trial. Young was assigned to the Traffic Division, Red Light Camera Photo Enforcement, and had more than six years experience in that assignment. Young testified that he visually inspected the traffic signal on a monthly basis to ensure that the duration of its yellow light interval complied with minimum guidelines set by the Department of Transportation. Young conducted timing checks of the traffic signals yellow light interval on February 16 and March 16, 2009. His timing checks showed averages of 4.11 seconds on February 16, 2009, and 4.03 seconds on March 16, 2009. These test results were above the 3.9 second minimum interval established by the California Department of Transportation for a 40miles-per-hour highway. Young further testified as follows. The ATES is a computer-based digital imaging system which photographs drivers who enter the intersection after the traffic signal has turned red or who fail to stop for a red light before turning right. When its sensors detect a vehicle in the intersection in the red light phase, the ATES is programmed to obtain three digital photographs and a 12-second video. The three photographs are a previolation photograph showing the vehicle behind the limit line, a post-violation photograph showing the vehicle in the intersection, and a photograph of the vehicles license plate. A data bar, which contains the date, time, location, and how long the light

right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to any vehicle that has approached or is approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard to the driver, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to that vehicle until the driver can proceed with reasonable safety."

3

had been red when each photograph was taken, is printed on each photograph. The 12second video shows the approach and progression of the vehicle through the intersection. Once triggered, the ATES operates independently and stores information on the hard disc of a computer at the scene. Redflex technicians retrieve that computerized information through an internet connection. A police officer reviews all photographs before a citation is printed or mailed. The data bar printed on the photographs of Goldsmiths violation indicated that the signal light was in the red light phase for 0.27 seconds when the pre-violation photograph was taken. The post-violation photograph taken 0.66 seconds later showed Goldsmith in the intersection while the signal light was still in the red light phase. The trial court found Goldsmith guilty of the violation and imposed a $436.00 fine. Goldsmith appealed to the Appellate Division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Its opinion, People v. Goldsmith (20011) 193 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 (Goldsmith), disagreed with People v. Khaled (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, and held that there was a presumption that the data and digital photographs captured by the ATES were accurate representations of the information and images, that Goldsmith failed to meet her burden of producing evidence casting doubt on the accuracy or reliability of the photographs, and therefore the photographs were presumed to be accurate and authenticated. The Goldsmith opinion also found that Investigator Youngs testimony provided the foundation necessary to demonstrate that the photographs reliably portrayed data and images therein. Goldsmith further held that the hearsay rule did not render the ATES photographs inadmissible, and affirmed the trial courts finding that evidence of tests of the yellow light change interval at the intersection showed average yellow light intervals that exceeded the 3.9-second yellow light interval established by the California Department of Transportation for this intersection. Goldsmith also affirmed the trial courts factual finding that the photograph of the driver was Goldsmith. On March 29, 2011, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1002, this court ordered the case transferred to this court and subsequently set the matter for hearing.

4

ISSUES Goldsmith claims on appeal that: 1. The trial court should have excluded the video, photographs, and data imprinted on the photographs because there was no evidence that the computer was operating properly; 2. The video, photographs, and data imprinted on photographs of Goldsmiths violation were hearsay, the prosecution did not establish the elements of the business records or public records exceptions to the hearsay rule in Evidence Code sections 1271 and 1280, and that neither exception applies to the video, photographs, and imprinted data; and 3. The traffic signals yellow interval did not conform to the requirements of Vehicle Code section 21455.7. DISCUSSION 1. The Abuse of Discretion Standard of Review Applies to a Trial Court's Rulings on the Admissibility of Evidence An appellate court reviews a trial courts ruling on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion. (People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 717.) This standard applies to rulings on hearsay objections (id. at p. 725) and to rulings on objections to the authentication of and foundation for evidence (Jazayeri v. Mao (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 301, 319; People v. Smith (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 986, 1001). The test for whether an abuse of discretion has occurred is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances before it being considered. An appellate court is not authorized to substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge. Absent a clear showing that its decision was arbitrary or irrational, a trial court should be presumed to have acted to achieve legitimate objectives, and its discretionary determinations ought not to be set aside on review. (Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Group, Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 21, 44-45.)

5

2. Testimony On the Accuracy and Reliability of Computer Hardware and Software Is Not Required as a Prerequisite to Admission of Computer Records Goldsmith claims that the trial court should have excluded the video, photographs, and data imprinted on the photographs because there was no evidence presented to support a finding that the computer was operating properly. The data imprinted on the photographs includes the date, time, and location of the violation and how long the light had been red at the time each photograph was taken. "Authentication of a writing is required before it may be received in evidence." (Evid. Code,

Download P. v. Goldsmith 2/28/12 CA2/3.pdf