Chapter 3: Burden of Proof
Case Study 1
Overview — Based on: State v. Soto, 262 P.3d 670, 2011 Haw. App. LEXIS 1174 (2011).
At the time this criminal case arose, the alleged victim, Chasare Soto, was the girlfriend of Nicholas Soto; Crystal Soto was Nicholas’s ex-wife; and Chris Orozco was Crystal’s current boyfriend. Nicholas and Crystal had been in a legal battle concerning custody of their two children. A harassment charge arose out of an altercation in which Nicholas and Chasare went to Crystal’s residence to pick up the children for visitation. At this point, Nicholas got into a dispute with Crystal over whether Nicholas would be allowed to take the children. Chris and Chasare also became involved. At some point, Chasare aggressively ran toward Crystal, whereupon Crystal put her arm up vertically to fend off bodily contact initiated by Chasare and made contact with Chasare’s chest. In Hawai’i, the crime of harassment exists where a person, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm any other person, strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise touches another person in an offensive manner or subjects the other person to offensive physical contact.
Chasare claimed to be the victim, although she could have been labeled as the aggressor. Crystal testified that she felt the need to protect herself from the aggression of Chasare and put her hand and arm up in a defense position. The trial court stated, “The defense that is raised to the touching is that of self-defense. The defendant has the burden to establish that and has failed to do that.”
Under the Hawai’i Penal Code, the justification of self-defense or the use of force in self-protection is not an affirmative defense. Thus, once a defendant puts forth credible evidence to support the defense, it became the prosecution’s burden to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, on appeal, Crystal contended that she had introduced sufficient evidence to raise a claim of self-defense that the judge did not require the prosecution to negate. Crystal demanded a new trial.
Yes. Although a defendant generally has no burden of proof concerning anything in a criminal case, when a defendant asserts an affirmative defense, most jurisdictions place the burden of proving an affirmative defense upon the defendant, because the defendant is in the position of having access to most of the evidence concerning the defense. Some jurisdictions, although in the minority, require that the defendant raise the affirmative defense issue by introducing proof of an affirmative defense, and once that issue has been raised, the burden of disproving that defense rests with the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. Some jurisdictions would require that the prosecution negate the affirmative defense only by a preponderance of evidence. See Chapter 3, Section 3.12.
Yes. The defendant claimed self-defense and introduced some evidence that helped support her claim. Because the District Court indicated that it did not believe the defendant had proven self-defense, such comment indicated that the trial court believed the defendant had a burden of proof concerning self-defense. The District Court’s decision had the effect of shifting the burden of proof on self-defense to the defendant, contrary to Hawai’i law. The conviction had to be reversed and the case set for a new trial. See Chapter 3, Section 3.9.
Case Study 2
Overview — Based on: People v. Rekte, 232 Cal. App. 4th 1237 (2015).
Defendant Rekte received a citation by mail for a violation of Cal. Veh. Code § 21453, subd. (a), for failing to stop at a red traffic light, based on a photograph taken pursuant to the automated traffic enforcement system (ATES). At his bench trial, the defendant presented expert testimony to rebut the presumption of the reliability of the photographic evidence due to noncompliance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The trial court found the defendant guilty of the offense, and the appellate division affirmed.
Prior to the commencement of trial, the defendant made an in limine motion to exclude the photographic and video evidence from the traffic cameras on the grounds that: (1) the yellow light interval did not conform with the standards required by the MUTCD; (2) the defendant was not provided with pretrial discovery of the video clip upon which the ATES citation was based; and (3) the geometry of the intersection and placement angles of the ATES equipment and traffic signals obscured the view of a substantial portion of the traffic signal light.
The trial court denied the in limine motion. Defendant also objected to the foundational statement and introduction of the evidence of the traffic video recording and the declarations of any Redflex Traffic Systems employee. The objections were overruled. The matter proceeded to trial with operator Teagarden, a former police officer, appearing on behalf of the City of Riverside. Since May 2010, he had been employed by the Riverside Police Department to review violations of the ATES data reported by Redflex. The automated camera system captured drivers who entered an intersection while a red traffic light was illuminated in a driver’s lane. The system was triggered when a car went through a red light while driving at least 15 miles per hour. The ATES system was installed and maintained by Redflex Traffic Systems (Redflex).
According to Redflex, the photo system takes a series of still photographs and a 12-second video, which covers the elements of the violation. The images are transmitted electronically to the Redflex office in Phoenix, Arizona, where they are reviewed by company personnel. A Redflex employee then sends a compact disc with the images and the 12-second video on it to the Riverside Police Department, where operator Teagarden reviews them. In an effort to assure an evidentiary foundation, on the image digitally printed on the photograph, is information that covers the date, time, location, vehicle speed, and how long the signal light had been in the red position at the time the photograph was taken. Although operator Teagarden did not personally test the sequence, he testified that the yellow light phases met or exceeded the minimum “recommendations” established by California’s Department of Transportation.
The defense presented expert testimony by engineer Sean Stockwell, who visited the location of the infraction on several occasions, before and after the date of the offense, to time the yellow light interval. To time the interval, expert witness Stockwell took four video clips of the changing traffic signals, which he then uploaded onto a video program on his computer in order to get a time index. On each occasion, using the software indexing capability, the yellow light interval was found to be 3.5 seconds, plus or minus 0.07 seconds, which is less than the 3.6-second minimum interval required by the MUTCD. This expert testimony evidence rebutted the prosecution’s evidence to the point where the evidence on each side could be described as “equal,” where the evidence presented was of similar believability.
Defendant raised several issues on appeal. He had concerns relating to a California statutory presumption involving evidence in this case that data obtained from computer storage were presumed to be accurate and whether the trial court committed error relating to the burden of proof in infraction cases.
A section of California law indicates that a printed representation of computer information or a computer program is presumed to be an accurate representation of the computer information or computer program that it purports to represent. This presumption affects the burden of producing evidence and does not change the allocation of the ultimate burden of proof. In California a presumption is either rebuttable or conclusive. According to California courts, the burden of producing evidence requires a party to introduce evidence sufficient to avoid a ruling against him or her on the issue. In a criminal case, since the prosecution has the burden of proof to establish guilt, the prosecution may not rest its case completely on the presumption unless the fact proved by the presumption is sufficient to support the inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a case like this, when a defendant introduces evidence that the computer data may be less than accurate, the presumption is rebutted and the trier of fact must make a decision on the merits of the evidence presented without the use of the presumption. In this case, the defendant presented expert testimony that contradicted the presumption that the computer data were accurate, and the presumption disappeared from the case.
In this case, the defendant Rekte contended that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He contended that his evidence undermined the presumptions created by the California Evidence Code that presumed computer printouts were accurate. The defendant produced expert testimony and evidence that the printed representation of computer-generated information and the video or digital images admitted into evidence were inaccurate and unreliable. An inadequate yellow light interval renders a safe stop impossible, and constitutes an emergency justifying the entry into an intersection when the signal turns red. The burden of producing sufficient evidence (burden of going forward with the evidence) shifted back to the City prosecutor once the statutory presumption was rebutted by the defendant’s presentation of expert testimony, and the defense expert’s testimony and opinions were not refuted. Since the original digital images were previewed by Redflex employees before being transferred to the Riverside Police Department, and because digital images are susceptible to easy manipulation, it was necessary that the city introduce evidence that the printed representations were accurate. The defendant contended that if the City did not establish that the images were accurate, they were not admissible because they were not sufficiently authenticated.
Yes. In this case the defendant’s expert testimony undermined the California Evidence Code presumption that computer-generated information is generally accurate. The defendant accomplished this rebuttal by producing expert testimony that the digital and video images admitted into evidence were not accurate and reliable. Once the defendant introduced evidence that the computer-generated data were not accurate, the burden of going forward with the evidence shifted back to the City because the presumption of the California evidence code was rebutted. Due to the fact that computer images are easily manipulated, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to introduce evidence that the printed representations were accurate. Since the City did not properly prove the genuine quality of the computer-generated images, the images were not admissible because they were not properly authenticated. Thus, guilt or innocence should have been determined without reference to the computer-generated photographic evidence offered by the images. Without this evidence, there was a failure of proof beyond reasonable doubt on behalf of the prosecution, and the defendant’s conviction had to be reversed. The California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, overturned the defendant’s conviction.
See Chapter 3, Section 3.6 and 3.7.
Yes. At the start of every criminal trial, the prosecution has the obligation to introduce evidence that will move forward toward meeting its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This has been typically described as the initial burden of going forward with the evidence. This burden of going forward implies that the party possessing that burden must introduce enough evidence on a particular issue to have that issue decided by the finder of fact rather than resolved against the opposing party.
In this case, a California statute indicated that there was a presumption involving computer-generated data that such information was correctly collected, stored, and offered to the court as substantially accurate information. In this instance, the defendant introduced evidence, using expert testimony, that refuted the accuracy of the computer-generated information, with the result that the evidence was at least equal on both sides. If the evidence proves to be equal on both sides, there are two effects. The burden of going forward to prove the items of evidence shifts back to the prosecution to introduce evidence, which if believed, would move the case toward proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The other effect was that the defendant’s evidence also demonstrated that the computer-generated evidence should not have been admitted at all, with the result that the prosecution’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt was not met. The defendant should have been acquitted of this traffic offense.
Chapter 3, Sections 3.2(A and 3.2(B) and 3.5.).