AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted for speeding, specifically driving 16-20 miles over the posted speed limit. The Defendant, acting pro se, contested the conviction on the grounds that the State failed to adequately establish the legal speed limit of the area and the speed at which the Defendant was traveling.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State did not sufficiently prove the legal speed limit for the area where the speeding occurred nor the speed at which the Defendant was traveling. Contended that the State was required to produce a traffic engineering survey to establish the speed limit and challenged the accuracy of the speed measurement.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the evidence presented, including the officer's testimony regarding the posted speed limit and the Defendant's speed, was sufficient to support the conviction. Argued that the State was not required to produce a traffic engineering survey as part of its prima facie case.

Legal Issues

• Whether the State sufficiently established the legal speed limit for the area where the Defendant was cited for speeding.
• Whether the State sufficiently established the speed at which the Defendant was traveling.
• Whether the State is required to produce a traffic engineering survey to prove the speed limit in a speeding case.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for speeding.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Jonathan B. Sutin with Judges Cynthia A. Fry and M. Monica Zamora concurring, held that the State's evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The Court applied a two-step process for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determining whether a rational trier of fact could find each element of the crime established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the officer's testimony about the posted speed limit and the Defendant's speed was credible and sufficient. It was noted that the Defendant did not present any evidence to counter the State's claims about the speed limit or her speed. The Court also concluded that the State is not required to produce a traffic engineering survey to establish the speed limit in a speeding case, as the Defendant suggested. The officer's familiarity with the posted speed limits in the area and his detailed testimony about how he measured the Defendant's speed were deemed sufficient to support the conviction.