California
Appeals

Standard of Review-Finding of Fact-People v. Logsdon
 

 Actual impact is not required by the statute; potential effect triggers the signal requirement.  (See Veh. Code, § 22107 [“in the event any other vehicle may be affected . . . .”  Italics added.].)  The trial court found that a vehicle within 100 feet of Logdon’s car, traveling in the same lane and at the same speed, was affected by the lane change.  Moreover, the Legislature has declared its opinion that vehicle signals are needed within 100 feet of any turn.  (See Veh. Code, § 22108.)  Whether this finding is a discretionary finding or a finding of fact, we must accept this one.  Factual findings are to be accepted if substantial evidence can be found in the record to support them (see People v. Ayala, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 279), and discretionary rulings must be upheld unless an abuse of that discretion is shown.  (See People v. Bishop (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 203, 212-213 [abuse-of-discretion standard appropriate when lower court “is in the best position to determine the genuineness and effectiveness of the showing . . . .”].)  Under either standard, we must accept this finding.

                        In this case, changing from the middle lane to the far right lane without signaling could have affected the sole driver traveling behind Logsdon.  The lack of a signal could have been due to the driver’s drifting into the lane without intending to do so, with the possible result of a very sudden over-correction upon the error’s discovery.  Or, the driver could have unknowingly changed lanes due to a sudden illness or sleepiness.  The failure to signal would have left any driver proceeding behind him in bewilderment as to what to expect because it was impossible to discern the initial driver’s intent in changing lanes.  The purpose of the signaling requirement is to inform other drivers what the initial driver intends and thus, provide them with an indication as to his or her future course.  Without such an indication, a driver is bereft of necessary information by which preparations can be made to drive safely. 

                        Moreover, the question is not whether Logsdon actually violated the statute.  Rather, the issue was if some “objective manifestation” that the person may have committed such an error was present.  (See People v. Souza, supra, 9 Cal.4th at 231.)

eBook Master Table of Contents   
Standard of Review-Table of Contents