Defendant-appellant, Dale J. Bareness, was charged and convicted of violation of I.C. § 49-645 for failure to yield to an authorized emergency vehicle. That statute provides:
“Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle making use of an audible or visible signal, meeting the requirements of section 49-606, Idaho Code, the driver of every other vehicle shall yield the right-of-way and shall immediately drive to a position parallel to, and as close as possible to, the nearest edge or curb of the roadway lawful for parking and clear of any intersection and shall stop and remain in such position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed. * * * ” (Emphasis added.)
On appeal the facts and inferences arising therefrom are construed in a manner most favorable to upholding the decision of the trial court. State v. Mundell, 66 Idaho 297, 158 P.2d 818 (1945); 24A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1849 (1962). So viewed, the record here indicates that an authorized emergency vehicle (a police car), due to the circumstances existing, i. e., a felony in progress, was traveling in excess of the posted speed limits within the City of Boise displaying its flashing lights but not sounding its siren. Upon the approach of the emergency vehicle, Bareness did not drive as far as possible to the righthand side of the road nor did he stop until the emergency vehicle had passed. Rather, Bareness made a left turn in front of the oncoming emergency vehicle and a collision resulted.
Whether the driver of the emergency vehicle was driving with due regard for the safety of other persons, I.C. § 49-606, was a question for resolution by the trier of the fact and will not be disturbed upon appeal. Likewise, the question of whether Bareness saw or should have seen the oncoming emergency vehicle is likewise a question of fact for resolution by the trial court.
Bareness argued at trial that I.C. § 49-645, permitting an emergency vehicle to utilize an audible or a visible signal, is in conflict with the Boise City Code which allegedly requires both an audible and a visible signal. Assuming such conflict exists, the provisions of a city ordinance must yield to provisions of the state statute. Id. Const. Art. 12, § 2; I.C. §§ 49-581, 50-302.
The district court judgment affirming the magistrate court conviction is affirmed.
BAKES, C. J., and McFADDEN and DONALDSON, JJ., concur.