PEOPLE v. GOLDSMITH











Filed ADVANCE y722/14/11





CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION^*






APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES







THE PEOPLE, ) No. BR 048189
)
Plaintiff and Respondent, ) (Trial Court
) No. 102693IN)
v. )
)
CARMEN GOLDSMITH, )
)
Defendant and Appellant. ) OPINION
)


APPEAL from a judgment of the Los Angeles Superior Court, John R. Johnson, Commissioner. Affirmed.
John J. Jackman for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *




I. INTRODUCTION
On March 13, 2009, a notice to appear was issued to appellant pursuant to the automated traffic enforcement statutes (Veh. Code, §§ 21455.5-21455.7), alleging she failed to stop at a red signal light located at the intersection of Centinela Avenue and Beach Avenue in the City of Inglewood. Following a court trial wherein photographic evidence obtained from an automated traffic enforcement system (ATES) was admitted, appellant was convicted of failing to stop at a red signal light (Veh. Code, § 21453, subd. (a)).
Appellant presents the following contentions: (1) the photographs depicting the traffic violation were inadmissible because no foundation was established that the photographs were a reasonable representation of what they were alleged to portray, and they constituted hearsay; (2) the yellow light interval of the traffic light did not conform to the requirements of Vehicle Code section 21455.7; (3) the prosecution's use of photographic evidence violated appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses; and (4) the prosecution failed to prove appellant was the driver depicted in the photographs.
In affirming the judgment, we acknowledge the appellate division of the Orange County Superior Court has held that claims similar to those addressed in part III.A. warrant reversal of the judgment. (People v. Khaled (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1.) Specifically, Khaled held photographs from an ATES purporting to show the defendant driving through a red light were inadmissible because the testifying officer: (1) was not a percipient witness and, therefore, could not establish that the photograph was a â€