Court Opinion

ID: 9691526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:37:33.328677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:22.090998
License: Public Domain

WINTERSHEIMER,
Justice, Dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because the trial judge acted properly in overruling Bell’s motion for a directed verdict because sufficient evidence was presented so that a rational trier of fact could have found him guilty of first-degree fleeing and evading police, pursuant to KRS 520.095.
The facts of this case indicate that Bell, armed with a weapon, ran from a police officer who had ordered him to halt. The officer chased Bell through several back yards and over a fence before catching him. This was sufficient evidence for a jury to believe that the flight created a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death.
Anything can happen during a chase situation involving alleged criminal conduct. See Robertson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 82 S.W.3d 832 (2002). Particularly when the chase involves an armed suspect, the risks are numerous and the first-degree fleeing and evading statute is meant to reduce the dangers involved and punish the offenders.
The trial judge was correct in overruling the motion for a directed verdict by Bell. I would affirm the conviction in all respects.