Conviction for Voilating Section 2800.2 Reversed

Conviction for Voilating Section 2800.2 Was Reversed As There Was No Evidence of Red Light of Pursuing Police Vehicle Being on As It Was An Essential Element of the Offence: In People v. Brown (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 596, the defendant's conviction for violating section 2800.2 was reversed because there was insufficient evidence that the pursuing police vehicle was exhibiting "at least one lighted red lamp visible from the front." (Veh. Code, 2800.1, subd. (a).) In Brown, the court described the evidence as follows: "Officer Wilson testified that her police car was equipped to display three possible signal options; one, a flashing amber light to the rear; two, blue and white lights blinking to the front and rear; and three, rotating red, blue and white lights. Officer Wilson 'activated [her] overhead signals,' but did not remember whether they were in 'the second or third position.' Freddie Johnson, a bystander at the scene of the accident, testified that when he saw the police car, its lights were on. Layre Allen, another bystander, testified that the police car was displaying flashing lights. There was no testimony that established the color of the lights." ( People v. Brown, supra, 216 Cal.App.3d at pp. 599-600.) In assessing this evidence, the court explained that "where the proven facts give equal support to two inconsistent inferences, neither is established. Here, the evidence established that Officer Wilson's lights were on, but not whether any of them were red. Accordingly, we conclude that there was no evidence of an essential element of the offense, and reverse." (People v. Brown, supra, 216 Cal.App.3d at p. 600.)