1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ____ ____ 3 Fi lin g D at e: Jul y

19, 201 8 4 N O. A -1 -C A -3 5135 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v
. 8 SEA N V EST, 9 D ef

en dant- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF DO ÑAAN A C OUN TY 11 M ar ci E. Be ye r, D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 Santa Fe , N M 14 M. V ictoria W ilson , A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 15 Albuquerque, N M 16 for Appellee 17 Bennett J. Ba

ur, C hief Public De fender 18 Mary Bar ket, A ssistant Appellate D efender 19 San ta Fe, NM 20 fo r Appe llant15 T his Co urt pr ev iou sly a ddr es se d th e iss ue of

w he the r ac tua l e ndange rm en t i s 1 16 ne ce ssary

to supp ort a ggr av at ed

f le ei ng i n an op ini on tha t w as la te r va cate d bythe 17 N ewMe xic o S upr em e Co urt up on a m oti on t o a

ba te the pr oc ee din gs f

oll ow ing the 18 de at h o f th e d efen da nt . State v. Chavez , 20 16 -NMCA- 01 6, 3 65 P.3d 61 , va ca te d by 19 N
. M. S up. Ct . Or de r N o. S -1 -S C- 3561 4 ( A ug. 24, 201 6)
. W e not e tha t w e ha ve 20 bor ro w ed he av ily f ro m the an al y sis an d langua ge of that va cate d op ini on i n r en de ri ng 21 ou r de ci si on he rei n. 1 OPIN ION 2 VA NZ I, C hief Jud ge. 3 { 1} De fe n d an t Sean V est appeals his conv iction for aggravated fleeing a law 4 en fo rc em en t of

fi ce r, c ontrary to N MS A 1978 , Se ct ion 30- 22- 1. 1 (2 003)
. O n a ppe al , 5 D ef en dant c ont en ds tha t un de r his int er pr et at ionof the a ggr av at ed f le ei ng s ta tut e, the 6 ev ide nc e w as ins uf

fi ci en t to pr ove tha t he e ndange re d th e lif e of a nothe r pe rs on and, 7 the re fo re , ins uf

fi ci en t t o su

ppor t hi s co nvi ct ion
. D ef

en dant f urthe r co nte nds tha t he 1 8 w as e nti tle d to a n in str

uc tio n onthe le sse r inc lud ed m isd em eanor of fe nse of r es ist ing , 9 evading, or obstructing an office r, which he did not receive. B ec au se we are 10 pe rs ua de d th at

ac onvi ct ionund er

the a ggr av at ed fl ee ing statut e re qui re s af ind ing of 11 actual endangerm ent and the direct and circum stantial ev i d ence at tr ial wa s 12 i n s u ff i cient to supp ort such a finding , w e need not address whether D efendant w as 1 3 en t i t l ed t o a l es s eri n cl u d ed i n s t ru ct i o n . Ac co rd i n g l y, we r ev er s e D ef en d an t ’s 14 co nvi ct ionf

or a ggr av at ed

f le ei ng.2

1 BACKGRO UND 2 { 2} On Se ptem

ber 1 9 , 201 4, shortly

before 3:00 a. m ., Of

ficer Caprar o was 3 patrolling an are a of L as Cruce s, N ewMexico when he sawa Pontiac V ibe parked 4 nearby and observed a m an get out of the driver’s s i d e o f th e car . T he m an spotted 5 O ff ic er Ca pr ar o’ s pol ic e cr

uis er , ran ove r to i t, a nd t old O ff ic er Ca pr ar o th at som eo ne 6 had threatened him

with a k n i fe an d forced him out of his v ehicle. Of

ficer Caprar o 7 en ga ge d hi s li ght s and s ir en a nd p ur sue d th e ve hic le
. T he car spe d aw ay , m ad e a ri ght 8 tur n, a nd the of

fi ce r los t si ght

of it
. O ff ic er Ca pr ar o drov e ove r se ve nty

m ile s pe r hour 9 in h is atte m

pt t o c at ch up wit h th e vehic le
. T he r oa ds w er e w et f ro m ar ec en t r ai n 10 sto rm . O ff

ic er Ca pr ar o su bse que ntl y

f ound the ve hic le c ra she d and ab an done d ina 11 re sid en tia l are a. T he car w as de te rm ine d to have gone ont o th e sid ew al k and h it a sig n 12 be fo re c om ing to a sto p. D ef en dant w as ult im at el y

apprehe nd ed byapol ic e canin e 13 uni t. 14 { 3} D ef

en dant w as ind ic te d onone c ount of ar m ed r obbe ry a nd o ne c ount

of 15 aggravated flee ing a law e nforcem ent officer . A fter a j ury tria l , De fendant wa s 16 acquitted of arm ed robbery , but convicted of aggravated fleeing, a fourth degree 17 fe lon y . T his appe al f

oll ow ed
.3

1 DISC US SION 2 { 4} D ef

en dant m ak es tw o ar gum en ts o n a ppe al
. F ir st, D ef

en dant c ont en ds tha t the 3 ev ide nc e w as not

suf fi ci en t t o su sta in h is c onvi ct ion fo r ag gr av at ed f le ei ng b ec au se 4 the S ta te f

ai le d to e sta

bli sh tha t he dr ove in a m an ne r tha t e ndange re d th e lif e of a ny 5 indiv idual. Second, he argues that he wa s entitled to an instructio n on the le s ser 6 in cl u ded m isdem eanor offe nse of resisting, evading, or obstructing an o ffice r. 7 Be ca use we rev er se on the f ir st i ssu e, w e ne ed

not r ea chD ef

en dant’ s se co nd 8 arg um en t. 9 { 5} In order to determ ine whether there is suffic i ent evidence to supp ort 10 D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ionf

or a ggr av at ed

f le ei ng, w e m

ust fi rs t ad dr es s the c ontra sti ng 11 int er pr et at ion s of

the a ggr av at ed

f le ei ng s ta tut e pr es en te d by the part ie s. D ef en dant 12 co nte nds tha t “ [t ] he statut e an d jury in struc tio ns i n th is c as e re qui re d th e St at e to 13 es ta bli sh tha t [ D ef

en dant] a ct

ua lly en dange re d the lif

e of an oth er

pe rs on d ur ing the 14 pursuit .” De fendant contends th at an interpretation other than one that requires actual 15 en dange rm en t “ w oul d tr an sf orm virtua lly al l fl ee ing int o ag gr av at ed fl ee ing ” and 16 w oul d “ fa il to g ive e ff ec t t o th e sta tut or

y langua ge r equir ing that the f le ei ng b e both 17 care le ss and ‘ in a

m an ne r tha t e ndange rs the li fe of a nothe r pe rs on. ’ ” Co nve rs el y , the 18 State argues that the fleeing statute is intended to protect the public from the danger 19 of hig h spe ed ch as es , an d a de fe ndant’ s cu lpa bil ity shou ld be ba se d on the de ci sio n4

1 to flee “ and to do so by driving care lessly and dangerousl y .” The State c ontend s that 2 “ the L eg isl at

ur e int en de d th at w ill fu l, care le ss dri vin g ‘ in a m an ne r tha t e ndange rs the 3 lif e of a nothe r’ m eans c ar el es s dr ivi ng tha t c oul d r esul t in ha rm to an oth er

pe rs on” 4 an d th at

a ct ua l e ndange rm en t i s no t r equir ed
. A cc or din g to the St at e, to int er pr et the 5 s t at u t e a s De fe n d an ts u g g es t s wo u l d b e to “ as s i g n cu l p ab i l i t y b as ed o n s er en d i p i t y[,]” 6 rat he r th an a de fen da nt ’s con du ctan d s ta te of m in d. 7 P ri nc ip le s of

S ta tu to ry C on st ru ct ion 8 { 6} O ur

goa l w he n in te rp re tin g st at ute s is to as ce rt ai n and e ff ec tua te le gis la tiv e 9 in te nt . B ak

er v . H ed str om , 2013 -N MS C- 043, ¶ 11, 309 P. 3d 1047
. W e fi rs t loo k to 10 th e statu te ’ s pl ai n langua ge , w hic h is “ the pr im ar y ind ic at or of le gis la tiv e int en t.” 11 Sta te v . Young , 2004 -N MS C- 015, ¶ 5, 135 N
. M. 458 , 90 P
. 3d 4 77 ( int er na l qu ota tio n 12 m ar ks and cit at ion om itt ed ). “ If the langua ge of the statut e is c le ar

a nd una m

big uous , 13 we m us t g iv e effe ctto th atlan gu ag e an d re frai n fr om fur th er st atut ory

in te rp ret at io n.” 14 Sta te v . W

ils on , 2010-NMC A- 018, ¶ 9, 1 4 7 N.M
. 7 0 6, 228 P.3d 490 (internal 15 quot at ionm ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). Appe llate c ourts “ w ill not re ad int o a statut e 16 any words that ar e not there, particularly wh en the statute is com plete and m akes 17 sense as wr itten.” Sta te v . T ruj ill o , 200 9- N MS C- 012, ¶ 11, 146 N
. M. 14, 206 P
. 3d 18 125. T o e nsur e that our a ppl ic at ionof

the pla in m eanin g r

ule ind ic at es the tr

ue 19 le gis la tiv e int en t, w e m ay loo k to the his tor

y a nd p ur pose of the statut e to a id o ur5

1 st atut ory

co ns tru ct io n a na lysis
. Se e Sta te v . R iv era , 200 4-NMS C-001, ¶ 13, 134 N. M. 2 76 8, 8 2 P .3d 93 9 (“ In pe rfo rm in g ou r ta sk of st atut ory in te rp ret at io n, no t on ly do we 3 loo k to the langua ge of the statut e at

hand, w e al so c onsi de r the his tor y a nd 4 ba ck gr ound

of the statut e. ”)
. I n do ing so, w e ex am ine the langua ge in the c ont ex t of 5 the statutory schem e, legislative obj ectives, and other statutes in pari m ateria in order 6 to de te rm in e le gi sl at iv e in te nt . See State v. Cleve , 19 9 9 -N MSC- 017, ¶ 8, 127 N.M. 7 240, 980 P.2d 23. “ Finally , while we would be exceeding the boun ds of our role as 8 anappe llate c ourt by

se co nd- gue ssi ng the c le ar pol ic y of the L eg isl at

ur e, w he n th e 9 sta tut e is am

big uous , w e m ay

no ne th el es s c onsi de r the pol ic y im pli catio ns o f the 10 various constructions of the s t at ute.” R iv era , 200 4- N MS C- 001, ¶ 14 ( ci ta tio n 11 om it te d)
. 12 The A ggrava ted Flee ing Statu te 13 { 7} T he a ggr av at ed fl ee ing sta tut e re ad s, in pe rt ine nt part , tha t a pe rs on c om

m its 14 aggravated flee ing by“ willfully and care lessly

driving [a] vehicle in a m anne r th at 15 en dang er

s th e lif e of a nothe r pe rso n a ft er be ing giv enavis ua l or

au di bl e sig na l t o 16 stop . . . by

a uniform ed law en fo rc emen t officer in an appropriately

m arked law 17 en fo rc em en t ve h i c l e . ” S e c t i o n 30 -2 2- 1. 1( A ) (e m pha sis a dde d)
. A vio la tio n of S ec tio n 18 30-22-1.1(A) is a fourth d eg ree felony . S ection 30-22 -1.1(B ). Dr iving in a m anner 19 tha t e ndange rs a nothe r pe rs on i s an e sse nti al e le m en t of the a ggr av at ed

f le ei ng6

1 st atut e. See U JI 14- 2217 N MR A ( “ [T ] he state m

ust pr ove to y our

sa tis fa ct ionbe y ond 2 a re asonable doubt . .
. [that t] he defendant drove willfully and care lessly

in a m anner 3 th aten da ng ered th e li fe o f an ot he r pe rs on [.]”). 4 { 8} W e view the aggravated fleeing statute as evincing legis lative intent to m ore 5 severely

punis h people who j eopardize the safe ty of others while f

leeing from

law 6 enforcem en t officer s. H istorically , c ondu ct intended to th wart the eff orts of an 7 arrest in g of

fi ce r co nst itu te d th e m isd em eanor c ri m e of

r es ist ing , e va din g, or 8 ob st ru ct in g an off

ic er. See N M S A 1 9 7 8 , § 3 0
- 2 2
- 1 ( 1 9 8 1 )
. A s n o t e db y o u r S up r e me 9 Co urt, “ [t ] he le gis la tiv e de ci sio n to c re at e the c ri m e of a gg rava te d f

le ei ng s ugge sts 1 0 a h i er ar ch y o f c r i mi n a l l i ab i l i t y b as ed o n t h e a g g ra v at ed n at u re o f a d ef en d an t ’s 11 conduct.” Sta te v . P adi lla (Padilla II ) , 2 0 0 8
- N M S C
- 0 0 6 , ¶ 1 4 , 1 4 3 N
. M
. 310 , 176 12 P. 3d 2 99. T his a ggr av at ed na tur e ex ist s sp ec if

ic al ly “ whe n the pe rs on f le es in a 13 m anner that endangers t h e l ives of others[.] ” Id

. I m portantl y , the L eg isl at

ur e ch ose 14 not to re pe al a ny

portio n of

S ec tio n 30 -2 2- 1 up on the e na ctm en t of 30- 22- 1. 1. 15 In ste ad , the r es ist ing , e va din g, or obs tr uc tin g an of

fi ce r sta tut e re m ai ns i n e ff ec t and 16 cr im ina liz es co nduc t re la te d to ve hic ular fl igh t f ro m lawe nf or ce m en t. See § 30 -2 2- 17 1( C) ( “ Re sis tin g, e va din g or obs tr uc tin g an of

fi ce r co nsi sts of
. . . w ill fu lly r ef usi ng 18 to b ri ng a

ve hic le to a sto p w he n gi ve n a vis ua l or au dib le sig na l to s top , w he the r by 19 hand, voice, e m ergency light, flashing lig ht, siren or other si g n al , by a uniform ed7

1 of fi ce r in an a

ppr opr ia te ly

m ar ke d po lic e veh ic le [. ]
. . . Whoe ve r co m m its r es ist ing , 2 evading or ob structing an officer is guilty of a m isdem eanor. ”). The logical inference 3 to b e dr awn f

ro m the L eg isl at

ur e’ s de ci sio n no t t o re pe al an y portio n of S ec tio n 30
- 4 22- 1 is that an in div idu al m ay fl ee fr om law en fo rc em en t, e ve n inave hic le , w ith out 5 tr igg er ing pr ose cu tio n un de r the a ggr av at ed fle ei ng s ta tut e, so l ong as the f le ei ng 6 in di vi du al do es no t en da ng er o th ers in th e p ro ces s. See ge ne ral lySta te v . Sm ith , 7 2004 -N MS C- 032, ¶ 10, 136 N
. M. 372, 98 P. 3d 1022 (“ W e ex am in e th e o ve ra ll 8 structure of the statute and its function in the com prehensive legislativ e schem e. ”). 9 { 9} Ne it h er t h e aggravated f leeing statute, nor the corre spon ding uniform j ury 10 in st ru ct io n d efi ne s t he ter m “ en da ng ers ” as us ed in th e st atut e. See § 30 -2 2- 1. 1; U JI 11 14- 2217
. “ Whe n a term is not def ine d in astatut e, w e m

ust c onstru e it, giv ing tho se 12 w or ds the ir

or din ar y m eani ng ab se nt c le ar

a nd e xpr es s le gis la tiv e int en tio n to the 13 contrary .” Sta te v . T

sos ie , 201 1- N MC A -1 15, ¶ 19, 150 N
. M. 754 , 266 P
. 3d 3 4 14 (internal quotation m arks and citation o m i t t ed). Our courts often use diction ary 15 definition s to ascertain the ordinary m eaning of words that form the basis of statuto ry 16 c on st ru ct io n i nq ui rie s. Sta te v . B oy se , 201 3- N MS C- 024, ¶

9, 303 P
. 3d 8 30. 17 “ E ndange rm en t” is de fi ne d a s “ [t ] he a ct or a n i ns ta nc e of put tin g so m eo ne or 18 som ething in danger; exposure to peril or harm .” B lac k’ s L awD ic tio nary 644 (1 0th 19 ed
. 201 4)
. N on- le ga l di ct ion ar ie s of fe r sim ilar de fi nit io ns of both “ en dange r” a nd8

1 “ endangerm ent.” Se e 5 The A m er ic an He ritage D ic tio nary of t he E ngl ish L angu age 2 588 (5 th e d. 201 1) ( “ T o e xpos e to har m or dange r; im

pe ri l. ”) ; Th e O

xf ord E ngl ish 3 Dictionary 225 (2 d e d. 199 1) ( “ T he a ct ionof put tin g in dange r; the c ondi tio n of be ing 4 in danger.”) . E ach of these definitions indicates that the expos ure to the peril or harm 5 is an a ct

ua l or cur re nt con dit ion fa ci ng the im pa ct ed pe rs on. N one of

the se de fi nit ion s 6 indicates a potential or future conditi on. Since the plain language of t he statute does 7 not c ont em pl at e pote nti al or

f uture harm

in its use of

the w or d “ en dange r, ” an d th e 8 st atut e “ m ak es se ns e”—wit h resp ect to who is su bjec t t o p ro se cu ti on —as writ te n, see 9 Tr uji llo , 2009-NMS C-012, ¶ 11, we will not read the statute to include pot ential harm 10 ab se nt di rect io n f

r o m t h e Legi sl atur e. Clark v. Lovelace H ealth Sys., I

nc. , 200 4- 11 NMC A- 119, ¶ 14, 136 N. M. 411 , 99 P. 3d 23 2 (“ When language in a statut e enacte d 12 by the [L ] egislature is unam bigu ous, we apply

it as written, and any alteration of that 13 la ng ua ge is a m at te r fo r th e [L]egi sl atur e, no t fo r th is Co ur t.”) , overruled on other 14 grou nds by E

sta te of B ric e v. To

yo ta Mo tor

Co rp. , 2016 -N MS C- 018, ¶ 42, 373 P. 3d 15 97 7. 16 Suf ficienc y of the Evidenc e 17 { 10} H av ing de te rm ine d th at the a ggr av at ed

f le ei ng s ta tut e re qui re s th at the S ta te 18 pr ove a ct

ua l e ndange rm en t t o anothe r pe rs on, w e nowtur n to D ef en dant’ s arg um en t 1 9 t h at t h e e v i d en ce p re s en t ed at t ri al wa s i n s u ff i ci en tt o s up p o rt h i s co n v i ct i o n . We9

1 fo cu s so le ly

on the e le m en t of

e ndange rm en t, a s th is a

ppe ar s to be the onl y

e le m en t 2 of hi s co nv ic ti on forag gr av at edfle ei ng Defen da nt ch al le ng es on ap pe al
. 3 { 11} “ T he te st fo r suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce is w he the r subs tanti al e vid en ce of 4 ei the r a dir ec t or

c ir cum stanti al na tur e ex ist s to sup port a ve rd ic t of

gui lt be y ond a 5 reasonable doubt with re spect to every elem en t es s en t i al to a conviction.” State v. 6 D uran , 200 6- N MS C- 035, ¶ 5, 140 N
. M. 94, 140 P. 3d 515 (in te rn al quot at ionm ar ks 7 an d c itatio n om itt ed ). “ [W ] e m ust vie w the ev ide nc e in the lig ht m ost f av or ab le to the 8 gui lty ve rd ic t, ind

ulg ing a ll re as ona

ble inf er en ce s and r es olv ing a ll co nf lic ts i n th e 9 evidence in favor of the verdict. ” Id

. (internal quot ation m arks and citation om itted). 10 “ Co ntr ar

y e vid en ce sup portin g a cquit ta l do es not pr ovi de aba sis f

or r ev er sa l be ca

use 11 the j ury

is free to rej ect [the d] efendant’ s version of the facts.” Id

. ( int er na l qu ota tio n 12 m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). The f unc tio n of

a n a ppe llate c ourt w ithr es pe ct to 1 3 c h a l l e n g e s t o t h e s u f

f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e i s t o “ e n s u r e t h a tar a t i o n a l ju ry co uld 14 ha ve fou nd be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th e es se nt ia l fa ct s re qu ire d fo r a co nv ic ti on .” 15 Id

. ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). W e ap ply the se pr inc ipl es to 16 de te rm ine if

D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ion fo r ag gr av at ed fl ee ing is s uppo rt ed by suf fi ci en t 17 evidence. 18 { 12} As a threshold m atter, we note that, as the State po ints out, draw ing in fere nces 19 fr om the pr ev iou s pu

bli she d opini ons of our co urts re la te d to ag gr av at ed fl ee ing is n ot10

1 entirely useful given th at, in tho se cases, passengers wer e present in the vehicles 2 whi le th e d riv ers were fl eei ng fro m law en fo rcem en t. See Padill a II , 2008-NMS C3 006, ¶ 4 (“ [T ] he re w er e tw o pa sse nge rs in the c ar . ”) ; Sta te v . Co le m an , 20 11 -NMCA4 087, ¶ 22, 150 N
. M. 622 , 264 P
. 3d 5 23 ( ha vin g “ li tt le tr oubl e co nc lud ing ” tha t the 5 de fe ndant e ndange re d th e liv es of his pa sse nge rs a nd the de puty she ri ff duri ng the 6 ch as e) ; Sta te v . R oss , 2007-NMC A- 126 , ¶ 2, 142 N. M. 597, 168 P. 3d 16 9 (“ Ther e 7 we re f our passengers still in the vehicle.” ). In the present case , D efendant w as 8 ope ratin g ave hic le w ith out apa sse nge r. Be ca

use of thi s di sti nc tio n, c om

paris on 9 be tw ee n th e w ill fu l and c ar el es s be ha vio r ex hib ite d by the dr ive rs /de fe ndants in o ur 10 previous cases—includ ing sp eeding, running th rough st op signs , c rossing the center 11 lin e, a nd cr as hin g int o curb s or oth er statio nary

obj ec ts— an d th e al le ge d w ill fu l and 12 care le ss co nd uc t ex hi bi te d b y Defen da nt in th e pr es en t ca se are o f li m it edva lu e. See, 13 e. g. , Padilla II

, 200 8- N MS C- 006, ¶

3; Co le m an , 201 1- N MC A -0 87, ¶ 4; R oss , 200 7- 14 NMC A- 126, ¶ 2. W ithin these cases, however, there ar e descriptions of condu ct that 15 de m onstrate e ndange rm en t of oth er m otori sts w ho e nc ount er ed de fe ndants on the 16 ro ad way s. Se e Sta te v . P adi lla (P adi lla I ), 200 6- N MC A -1 07, ¶

5, 140 N
. M. 333 , 142 17 P .3d 92 1 (“ [The d]efen da nt ba rel y m is se d c ol li di ng wit h a no th er m ot or is t.”) , rev’d 18 on o the r gr ound

s , Padi lla II

, 200 8- N MS C- 006, ¶

34; R oss , 2007-NMC A- 126, ¶ 2 19 (“ A nothe r ve hic le ha d to abr upt ly sto p inor de r to avoi d c oll id in g wit h [the11

1 d] ef en d a n t . ” )
. I ti s t o t h i s c o n du c tt h a tw e l o o kt o d e t e rm i n e w h e t h e r D e f e n d an t 2 endangered another person within the m eaning of the aggravated fleeing statute. 3 { 13} E ve n w he n vi ew ing the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the gui lty 4 verdict, w e conclude that the State has not presented sufficient evidence to prove that 5 D ef en dant e ndange re d anothe r pe rs on a s r equir ed by the statut e. T he S ta te did not 6 present any

evidence that De fendant’ s flight from police actually endangered another 7 person. Rather, the S tate contends that Defe ndant’s “ driving at least [se venty ] m iles 8 pe r hour

thr oughar es ide nti al a re a, on a w et a nd s lip pe ry

r oa d, w ith at

le as t on e curv e 9 in i t[ ;]
. . . c ra sh[ ing ] the c ar int o a tra ff

ic sig n[ ;] re nde ri ng the c ar ino pe ra ble [; ] a nd 10 [g ettin g] out

of the c ar a nd [ le av ing ] it

in the m idd le of

the r oa dw ay ” w er e dange ro us 11 ac tio ns tha t “ cr eate d a pote nti al fo r harm to the pub lic
. ” T he re w as not , how ev er , a ny 1 2 e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e dt h a tDe f e n d a n te n c o u n t e r e da n y o t h e r mo t o r i s t s o n t h e r o a d w a y. 13 As such, no reasonable jur y could have found bey ond a reasonable doub t that 14 D ef en dant end an ge re d anothe r pe rs on wi thi n the m eanin g of the ag gr av at ed f le ei ng 15 st atut e. See § 3 0- 22 -1 .1. 16 { 14} Mor eo ve r, to the e xte nt the S ta te c ont en ds O ff ic er Ca pr ar o w as pla ce d in 17 danger through his pursu it of De fendant, w e again concl u d e t hat there w as 18 insufficient evidence presen t ed for a r easonable j ury to have found actual 19 endangerm ent of the officer as a r esult of Def

endant’ s driving . T he evidence12

1 pr e se nt e d e st abl i sh e d t hatO f f i c e r C apr a r o l os ts i gh to f

D e f e nd a nt s ho rt l y a f ter 2 engaging his em ergency equipm ent and later found the car D efend an t h ad been 3 dr ivi ng c ra she d and a

bandon ed
. Whil e the S ta te a sse rt s th at the of fi ce r’ s purs uit

of 4 De fe n dant at seventy

m iles per hour on rain-slicked roads sup ports Defe ndant ’s 5 co nvi ct ionf

or a ggr av at ed

f le ei ng, the S ta te ’ s arg um ent is j ust a nothe r m eans o f 6 as se rti ng th atpo te nt ia l d an ge r is su ffi ci en t. Ho wev er, i t i s n ot . 7 { 15} T his is not to say that e ndange rm en t r equir es that a f le ei ng m oto ri st p as s w ith in 8 inches of another vehicle or that an ac ci d en t is avoided o nly through extraordinary 9 ev as ive m aneu ve ring b y a nothe r dr ive r. Whe n aj ur y r et ur ns a ve rd ic t ba se d on 10 ev idenc e ind ic at ing a ct ua l e ndange rm en t, that ve rd ic t sh oul d no t be dis tur be d. 11 How ever, when, as her e, t h e record is com pletely devoid o f evidence of a ctual 12 en dange rm en t t o pa sse nge rs or oth er m oto ri sts , the ve rd ic t c an not stand. 13 CON CLU SION 14 { 16} For the fore goin g reasons, w e reverse Defendant’ s convictio n for aggravated 15 fl ee ing a law en fo rc em en t off ic er , co ntr ar

y to Se ct ion 30- 22- 1. 1. A s a r es ult , w e do 16 not reach D efendant’ s argum ent that he wa s entitled to a j ury instruction on the lesser 17 included m isdem eanor offe nse of resisting, evading, or obstructing an o ffice r. 18 { 17} IT IS S O ORDERE D. 19

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 20 LI N D A M . V A N Z I, C hi ef Ju dg e13

1 WE CO NCUR:

2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 3 JU LI E J . V A R GA S, Ju dg e

4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 5 ST EP HE N G. F R EN C H, Ju dg e