From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Pedersen

Minnesota Court of Appeals
Mar 11, 1986
382 N.W.2d 559 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)

Summary

holding that witness credibility is an issue for the fact-finder not the appellate courts

Summary of this case from State v. Wajda

Opinion

No. C5-85-1969.

March 11, 1986.

Appeal from the County Court, Cass County, Michael J. Hass, J.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Michael T. Milligan, Cass Co. Atty., Earl E. Maus, Asst. Cass Co. Atty., Walker, for respondent.

Theodor Pedersen, pro se.

Considered and decided by WOZNIAK, P.J., and LANSING and HUSPENI, JJ., with oral argument waived.


SUMMARY OPINION


FACTS

On July 1, 1985, Minnesota State Trooper Arthur May was on routine patrol on Highway 371 in Cass County. May testified that he is a certified radar operator and that the radar in his patrol car was checked that day to insure its accuracy. While on patrol, he was traveling 55 miles per hour, as verified by his radar and the speedometer of his vehicle. May observed a blue Oldsmobile about a half mile behind him approach his patrol vehicle. The Oldsmobile passed the patrol; May clocked the Oldsmobile's speed at 60 miles per hour. The driver, Theodor Pedersen, was stopped and was issued a traffic citation. At trial Pedersen testified and claimed that he was going 55 miles per hour, but that when he passed the patrol car he may have been going 60 miles per hour. The trial court found Pedersen guilty of speeding and fined him $10.

DECISION

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, State v. Wahlberg, 296 N.W.2d 408, 411 (Minn. 1980), there was sufficient evidence to conclude Pedersen was speeding. May's testimony indicated the radar's accuracy was checked that day and records corroborating this were introduced. Further, records were introduced about the certification for accuracy on the tuning forks used to measure the radar's reliability. May's speedometer was likewise checked that day to verify its reliability. The trial court credited May's testimony over Pedersen's. Weighing the credibility of witnesses is for the fact finder. See State v. Heinzer, 347 N.W.2d 535, 537-38 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. July 26, 1984).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Pedersen

Minnesota Court of Appeals
Mar 11, 1986
382 N.W.2d 559 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)

holding that witness credibility is an issue for the fact-finder not the appellate courts

Summary of this case from State v. Wajda
Case details for

State v. Pedersen

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Theodor PEDERSEN, Appellant

Court:Minnesota Court of Appeals

Date published: Mar 11, 1986

Citations

382 N.W.2d 559 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)

Citing Cases

State v. Zavala

Zavala also invites us to reevaluate Gunderson's credibility. Zavala argues that the veracity of Gunderson's…

State v. Wajda

The district court, as it was entitled to do, credited Officer Schultz's testimony that she used the radar…