State v. Macy, 12935
| Decision Date | 09 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 12935,12935 |
| Citation | 294 N.W.2d 435 |
| Parties | STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Ralph E. MACY, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Margaret Crew, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for plaintiff and appellee; Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., Pierre, on brief.
John E. Burke, Sioux Falls, for defendant and appellant.
Appellant seeks review from a speeding conviction. We affirm.
On August 26, 1979, State Trooper Paul Jensen received a radio message that a brown Buick automobile was speeding in an easterly direction on Interstate 90 west of Presho, South Dakota. Trooper Jensen was able to see a vehicle matching that description about two miles ahead of him proceeding east at what appeared to be a high rate of speed. He closed the gap to about 1600 feet and maintained that distance for approximately a mile at a speed of 85 miles per hour. At that pace the defendant was gaining. The trooper then accelerated and stopped the defendant. According to the officer his speedometer is calibrated every 20,000 miles and was verified that day by radar. He also testified that his patrol car was equipped with a radar unit which he did not activate.
The defendant waived a jury trial and was found guilty by the court. The only issue presented on appeal is whether there is sufficient evidence in the record from which the trial court could conclude that the defendant was guilty of speeding beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defendant denied he was speeding. It is his position on appeal that since the state trooper did not activate his radar unit he failed to utilize the most scientific means at his disposal to establish credible evidence as to speed. It appears, however, from other evidence that the radar units in the South Dakota Highway Patrol cars cannot be used to clock the speed of a car traveling in the same direction.
On appeal, we must accept all the evidence on the record supporting the conviction, as well as all reasonable inferences which can be drawn therefrom. State v. White, 269 N.W.2d 781 (S.D.1978); State v. Dietz, 264 N.W.2d 509 (S.D.1978). As the ultimate fact finder in this case, the trial court necessarily determined the credibility of each of the witnesses that testified, and the mere fact that there was a conflict in the evidence does not militate against a finding of guilt. State v. Means, 268 N.W.2d 802 (S.D.1978); State v. Bush, 260 N.W.2d 226 (S.D.1977); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Waller
...the evidence in the record that supports the conviction, as well as all reasonable inferences which can be drawn therefrom. State v. Macy, 294 N.W.2d 435 (S.D.1980). Defendant maintains that because the two counts of damage to property in the first degree involve one act, his conviction on ......
-
State v. Herrmann, 22045.
...independently verify his speeding by radar, such verification is not required even to sustain a speeding conviction. In State v. Macy, 294 N.W.2d 435, 436 (S.D. 1980), we upheld a speeding conviction where the pursuing officer paced the defendant's vehicle for approximately a mile traveling......
-
State v. Wolford, 13540
...226 (S.D.1977); Hilde v. Flood, 81 S.D. 25, 130 N.W.2d 100 (1964); Durr v. Hardesty, 76 S.D. 232, 76 N.W.2d 393 (1956). State v. Macy, 294 N.W.2d 435, 436 (S.D.1980). Under this standard of review, hold that there exists sufficient evidence in the record to uphold the conviction by the tria......
-
State v. Ashley
...to the trial judge as the ultimate trier of fact to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of the witnesses. State v. Macy, 294 N.W.2d 435, 436 (S.D.1980). Giving this deference to the trial judge in the present case, we cannot conclude it erred in finding Ashley guilty of Third D......