EPA VAAPUU, Appellant,
v.
High Court of
Appellate Division
AP No. 01-97
[1] The Appellate Division of the High Court has
jurisdiction over an appeal from a conviction for Careless Driving Causing
Property Damage in the District Court based upon a stenographic record pursuant
to A.S.C.A. § 3.0309.
[2] On an appeal on a stenographic record from a
traffic conviction in the District Court the trial court’s findings of fact are
reviewed for clear error. A.S.C.A § 46.2403(b).
[3] It can not be said the trial court’s finding
appellant guilty of Careless Driving Causing Property Damage was clearly
erroneous where the evidence showed without dispute that the collision occurred
outside of Appellant’s lane as marked by the solid white line painted on the
pavement some 12-16 inches from the (gravel) shoulder of the roadway.
Before KRUSE, Chief Justice, RICHMOND, Associate
Justice, WARD*, Acting Associate
Justice, TUA`OLO, Associate Judge, and SAGAPOLUTELE, Associate Judge.
Counsel: For
Appellant, Tautai A.F. Fa`alevao
For
Appellee, Fainu`ulelei
OPINION AND ORDER
WARD, Acting Associate Justice.
Procedural History
On
After the District Court denied Appellant’s Motion for
New Trial, Appellant timely filed his Notice of Appeal with this Court on
Discussion
Appellant presents two issues on appeal: 1) whether
the District Court erred in making a finding contrary to the evidence submitted
at trial; and 2) whether the District Court erred in allowing an excluded
witness to testify as to substantive matters.
[1-2] This Court has jurisdiction over this case upon
appeal based upon a stenographic record pursuant to A.S.C.A. § 3.0309. On appeal, the trial court’s findings of fact
are reviewed for clear error. A.S.C.A. §
46.2403(b).
Under A.S.C.A. § 22.0101, the term “highway” is
defined as “ . . . the entire width between the boundary lines of every
publicly maintained way . . . “
Appellant argues that because the testimony at trial and the photographs
admitted into evidence indicate the point of impact between the two vehicles
could have occurred on the paved portion of the highway, the District Court’s
holding that the speed of Appellant’s vehicle caused him to leave the “road”
and strike obliquely another vehicle on the side of the roadway was contrary to
the weight of the evidence.
[3] After carefully reviewing all of the testimony and
exhibits on file in this matter, we do not find the District Court’s findings
of relevant facts to be clearly erroneous.
The point of impact occurred outside of the solid white line delineating
the width of the highway. Regardless of
whether or not the 10 feet long skid marks by Appellant’s vehicle were made by
the right or left front tires of his vehicle, at least a portion of his vehicle
was outside of the “highway” when the other vehicle was struck. Both Appellant and Appellee agree that the
point of impact occurred outside of Appellant’s lane as marked by the solid
white line painted on the pavement some 12-16 inches from the (gravel) shoulder
of the roadway. The District Court’s
findings of fact, therefore, were not clearly erroneous.[3ASR3d3]
With respect to Appellant’s second issue on appeal we
do not find reversible error. Although
the District Court’s decision embraces its belief that the skid marks were made
be Appellant’s left front tires, it also relies upon the balance of all the
testimony and exhibits presented at trial.
No reversible error occurred as a result of the District Court’s
admission of substantive testimony by the witness called to establish
foundation for the authenticity of a trial photo exhibit.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the judgment appealed
from will be AFFIRMED.
It is so Ordered.
* Honorable John L. Ward II, District
Court Judge, serving by designation of the Secretary of Interior