State of Minnesota v. Ogonnaya Vincent Ofor ( 2014 )

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A13-1144
State of Minnesota,
Respondent,
vs.
Ogonnaya Vincent Ofor,
Appellant.
Filed July 7, 2014
Affirmed
Stauber, Judge
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27VB1215034
Lori A. Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
David K. Ross, Assistant Brooklyn Center Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
respondent);
Ogonnaya Vincent Ofor, New Brighton, Minnesota (pro se appellant)
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Stauber, Judge; and
Klaphake, Judge.

Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
STAUBER, Judge
In this pro se appeal, appellant challenges his petty misdemeanor conviction of
running a red light, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction
and that the testimony of the police officer who issued the citation was disingenuous. We
affirm.
FACTS
On September 23, 2012, appellant Ogonnaya Ofor was cited for failing to obey a
traffic signal in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169.06, subd. 5 (2012). Appellant contested the
ticket, and a trial was held on May 21, 2013.
Trooper Melissa Fischer testified that she observed appellant run a red left-turn
arrow while turning off of northbound Highway 252 onto westbound 66th Avenue in
Brooklyn Center. Trooper Fischer testified that, at approximately 5:46 pm, her squad car
was positioned on northbound Highway 252 at the intersection of 66th Avenue in the
number two left-turn lane. She explained that the intersection has two left-turn lanes,
three through-lanes that continue northbound, and one right-turn lane. She testified that
traffic had accumulated in the two left-turn lanes. When the light turned to a green
arrow, traffic began moving forward, but when the arrow turned red, only three or four
cars had actually proceeded through on the green arrow. She testified that the light
cycled properly from green to yellow and from yellow to red. She testified that she
stopped her squad vehicle when the light changed to a red arrow and became the first car
in line at the intersection in the number two left-turn lane, but that a white and blue taxi
2
cab in the number one left-turn lane continued through the intersection after the arrow
had changed to red. She testified that she initiated a traffic stop of the taxi on 66th
Avenue and identified the driver as appellant. She issued appellant a ticket for failing to
obey a traffic signal.
Appellant testified that he was already through the intersection when the arrow
turned red. He testified that while he was turning left another car in the number two left-
turn lane was turning at the exact same moment in time, but appellant could not describe
the vehicle. Appellant initially testified that he saw Trooper Fischer’s squad car sitting
behind the vehicle that passed through the intersection at the same time he did, but later
testified that he did not see the squad car until Trooper Fischer initiated the traffic stop.
Appellant also testified that Trooper Fischer was driving an unmarked red van. But on
redirect, Trooper Fischer testified that she normally drives a marked squad car, although
on this date it was possible that she was driving an unmarked red Dodge Charger.
The district court found that Trooper Fischer “described pretty clearly what
happened,” and that she was “more likely to be paying close attention to the signal
because she was sitting right there at the red arrow.” The district court found that
appellant was not paying as much attention because “he didn’t notice that he passed the
trooper.” The district court concluded, based on this evidence, that the state proved that
appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and imposed a fine and surcharge totaling
$128. This appeal followed.
3
DECISION
Appellant argues that Trooper Fischer’s testimony was “disingenuous” and that
the evidence was insufficient to convict him because Trooper Fischer’s squad video was
never introduced into evidence. On review, this court must assume that the fact-finder
“believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v.
Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989). This is especially true when resolution of
the matter depends mainly on conflicting testimony. State v. Pieschke, 295 N.W.2d 580,
584 (Minn. 1980). The reviewing court will not disturb the verdict if the district court,
acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof
beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of
the charged offense. Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 465, 476-77 (Minn. 2004).
The district court found that appellant’s testimony was not credible because
Trooper Fischer’s testimony more clearly described the incident and because she was
more likely to be paying attention to the traffic signal because she was the first car in line
waiting for the light to change. Moreover, the transcript reveals that appellant’s
testimony was confused and self-contradictory. Appellant initially testified that he saw
Trooper Fischer stopped behind him at the light, but then later said he did not notice her
until he was pulled over. And appellant testified that Trooper Fischer was driving a red
van, when she was more likely driving a marked squad car or an unmarked red sedan.
And appellant testified that he entered the intersection at the same time as another
vehicle, but could not describe the vehicle. Because we defer to the district court’s
4
credibility determinations, we conclude that the district court did not err by finding that
Trooper Fischer’s testimony was more reliable.
Appellant also argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him because the
video from Trooper Fischer’s squad car was never entered into evidence. Trooper
Fischer testified that when she requested a copy of her squad video from her office, the
person who makes the recordings told her that “there was no video that downloaded onto
the disk.” For reasons unknown, the squad video camera failed to record. The district
court found that “there is no evidence that the video was handled improperly.”
Therefore, because there was no squad video, the district court did not err by failing to
admit it into evidence. Moreover, evidence from a single witness may be sufficient to
support a verdict. Waldo v. St. Paul Ry. Co., 244 Minn. 416, 424, 70 N.W.2d 289, 294
(1955).
Affirmed.
5