A jury verdict finding the defendant guilty of a violation of Penal Code section 2800.2 was supported by substantial evidence that the pursuing police car displayed at least one red lamp and was distinctively marked. In this case the pursuing officer testified only that he had activated the lights on his car, but did not specify that they were red lights. The Court of Appeal found that the jury could have reasonably inferred from this testimony that the officer had activated all of the lights with which his vehicle was equipped, including the red lights. The court further found that the jury could have reasonably concluded that the vehicle was distinctively marked from the officer’s testimony that he had activating the lights and sirens, and any further doubt that a reasonable person would not have known that this was a police car was removed by the defendant’s own statement that he realized that he was being pursued by the police.