AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• While on duty, Officer Veronica De La O received a be-on-the-lookout (BOLO) alert for a large blue truck. Shortly after, she observed a vehicle matching the description and the driver, later identified as the Defendant, engaging in dangerous driving behaviors. Despite Officer De La O's attempts to stop the Defendant using lights and an air horn, the Defendant fled through a shopping center parking lot, nearly causing accidents and endangering pedestrians. The pursuit continued until the Defendant crashed his truck and was apprehended by officers on foot (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that "pursuit" by a law enforcement officer is an essential element of aggravated fleeing and that the district court's failure to instruct the jury on this element resulted in reversible error. Contended there was insufficient evidence of "pursuit" and that the convictions for aggravated fleeing and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer violate double jeopardy (paras 8, 10-11, 16).
• Appellee: Argued in favor of the convictions and against the necessity of including "pursuit" as an essential element in the jury instructions. Maintained that the evidence supported the Defendant's convictions and opposed the double jeopardy claim (paras 8-9, 12-15, 17-20).

Legal Issues

• Whether "pursuit" by a law enforcement officer is an essential element of aggravated fleeing and if the district court's failure to instruct the jury on this element resulted in reversible error.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's aggravated fleeing conviction.
• Whether the Defendant’s convictions for aggravated fleeing and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer violate double jeopardy (para 1).

Disposition

• The court remanded to the district court to vacate the Defendant's conviction for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer due to a violation of double jeopardy. Otherwise, the court affirmed the Defendant's convictions (para 1).

Reasons

• JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge (LINDA M. VANZI, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring):
  The court assumed "pursuit" as an essential element of aggravated fleeing for the purpose of the opinion but concluded that the evidence clearly established "pursuit" by Officer De La O, thus the district court's failure to instruct on that element did not amount to reversible error. The court rejected the Defendant's argument that "pursuit" requires continuous visual contact, emphasizing that such an interpretation would lead to absurd results contrary to legislative intent. The court found sufficient evidence of "pursuit" and, therefore, affirmed the aggravated fleeing conviction. However, the court agreed with the Defendant on the double jeopardy claim, citing precedent that resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer is a lesser included offense of aggravated fleeing when there is unitary conduct. The court declined to overrule this precedent, leading to the vacating of the lesser offense conviction (paras 8-23).