1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42482

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

GEORGE WILLIAM TISCHER,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 764

Filed: December 23, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Blaine

County. Hon. Robert J. Elgee, District Judge; Hon. Jason D. Walker, Magistrate. 

Decision of the district court on intermediate appeal from the magistrate, 

affirmed.

George W. Tischer, Ketchum, pro se appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; John C. McKinney, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

HUSKEY, Judge

This is an appeal from the district court sitting in its appellate capacity. George William 

Tischer appeals from the district court decision affirming the judgment of the magistrate finding 

that Tischer committed the infraction of failure to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk, Idaho 

Code § 49-702(1). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Tischer was issued an infraction citation for violation of Idaho Code § 49-702. Tischer 

was cited for failure to yield to a pedestrian crossing the street in a crosswalk. A court trial was 

held, and the State’s witness was Hailey Police Officer Cox who issued the citation. Officer Cox 

was on patrol when he observed a pedestrian crossing Main Street, through a crosswalk, in 

Hailey, Idaho. He testified that he and other drivers stopped at the crosswalk, but that Tischer’s

vehicle approached the intersection and did not come to a complete stop until it was in the 
2

crosswalk and the pedestrian was right in front of the vehicle. Officer Cox observed the 

pedestrian throw her hands up in the air and appear to yell at Tischer, and that Tischer proceeded 

through the intersection while the pedestrian was still in the crosswalk. Officer Cox initiated a 

traffic stop and issued the citation to Tischer.

Tischer appeared pro se at the trial. Tischer testified that he observed the pedestrian in 

the crosswalk and that he came to a complete stop. He testified that he did not proceed through 

the crosswalk until after the pedestrian waved her hands at him, in what he believed was a signal 

for him to proceed through the crosswalk ahead of her. Tischer was found guilty of violating 

I.C. § 49-702(1) and a judgment was entered. The magistrate stated on the record that there were 

conflicting facts, but that it was clear that Tischer did not yield to the pedestrian because 

regardless of whether the pedestrian signaled to him or not, Tischer drove through the 

intersection without allowing the pedestrian to proceed through the crosswalk first. The 

magistrate stated that its decision was based on Tischer’s own testimony. The magistrate also 

stated that it would not make a finding that when the pedestrian threw her hands in the air that 

she intended to indicate that the vehicle should proceed through the intersection ahead of her. 

Tischer appealed to the district court. The district court affirmed the judgment of the 

magistrate because the magistrate’s finding of guilt was supported by substantial and competent 

evidence and that no error had been shown in the magistrate’s finding. Tischer appears pro se in 

the appeal to this Court.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing the decision of a district court sitting in its appellate capacity, our 

standard of review is the same as expressed by the Idaho Supreme Court. The Supreme Court 

reviews the magistrate record to determine whether there is substantial and competent evidence 

to support the magistrate’s findings of fact and whether the magistrate’s conclusions of law 

follow from those findings. State v. Korn, 148 Idaho 413, 415, 224 P.3d 480, 482 (2009). If 

those findings are so supported and the conclusions follow therefrom, and if the district court 

affirmed the magistrate’s decision, we affirm the district court’s decision as a matter of 

procedure. Id. Thus, we do not review the decision of the magistrate. State v. Trusdall, 155 

Idaho 965, 968, 318 P.3d 955, 958 (Ct. App. 2014). Rather, we are procedurally bound to affirm 

or reverse the decisions of the district court. Id. 
3

Appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence is limited in scope. A finding of guilt 

will not be overturned on appeal where there is substantial evidence upon which a reasonable 

trier of fact could have found that the prosecution sustained its burden of proving the essential 

elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Herrera-Brito, 131 Idaho 383, 385, 957 

P.2d 1099, 1101 (Ct. App. 1998); State v. Knutson, 121 Idaho 101, 104, 822 P.2d 998, 1001 (Ct. 

App. 1991). We will not substitute our view for that of the trier of fact as to the credibility of the 

witnesses, the weight to be given to the testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn 

from the evidence. Knutson, 121 Idaho at 104, 822 P.2d at 1001; State v. Decker, 108 Idaho 683, 

684, 701 P.2d 303, 304 (Ct. App. 1985). Moreover, we will consider the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the prosecution. Herrera-Brito, 131 Idaho at 385, 957 P.2d at 1101; Knutson, 

121 Idaho at 104, 822 P.2d at 1001. 

III. 

ANALYSIS

At issue in this appeal is the magistrate’s finding that Tischer violated Idaho Code 

§ 49-702(1). That code section provides:

When traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation the driver of a 

vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping, if need be, to yield 

to a pedestrian crossing the highway within a crosswalk.

I.C. § 49-702(1). A violation of this code section is an infraction pursuant to Idaho Code 

§ 49-236(2). On appeal, Tischer argues that there is not substantial and competent evidence to 

support the magistrate’s findings and that the magistrate erred by failing to properly consider all 

the testimony at trial. Tischer does not argue on appeal that the district court erred in affirming 

the magistrate decision; rather, he asserts the same arguments as presented to the district court in 

the direct appeal. 

The record supports the magistrate’s finding that Tischer violated I.C. § 49-702(1). The 

testimony of both Officer Cox and Tischer indicate that while Tischer did come to a complete 

stop, he did not yield to the pedestrian before proceeding through the intersection. In addition, 

the magistrate determined that when the pedestrian put her arms in the air, that it was not with 

the intention of signaling to Tischer that he should proceed ahead of her through the intersection. 

The magistrate is responsible for assessing the credibility of the witnesses, determining the 

weight to be given to the testimony, and deciding what reasonable inferences to be drawn from 

the evidence. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the magistrate, and we conclude 
4

that the record supports the magistrate’s determination that Tischer violated I.C. § 49-702(1). 

We affirm the district court’s decision affirming the magistrate’s finding that Tischer committed 

the infraction.

IV. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the magistrate’s finding that Tischer violated 

Idaho Code § 49-702(1). The magistrate’s finding of guilt is supported by substantial and 

competent evidence, and we uphold the district court’s order affirming the judgment.

Chief Judge MELANSON and Judge GUTIERREZ CONCUR.