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

• On January 9, 2017, the Defendant attempted to leave a store with concealed merchandise but was confronted and relinquished the items. Detected by a store manager as a person of interest, police were called. As the Defendant left, he was pursued by police, initially in an unmarked vehicle by a detective in plain clothes, and subsequently by marked police vehicles. The pursuit involved the Defendant driving at high speeds, ignoring stop signs, and eventually crashing his vehicle. The Defendant was charged with aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer and driving while his license was suspended. He testified that he was unaware of being pursued until moments before the crash, denied speeding or endangering others, and mentioned having an expired temporary license and an outstanding warrant (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant engaged in aggravated fleeing from law enforcement and was driving on a suspended license, presenting evidence of the high-speed chase, the Defendant's disregard for traffic signs, and the eventual crash. The State also contended that the Defendant was aware his license was suspended.
• Defendant-Appellant (Andrew Nicholas May): Contended that he was not aware of the police pursuit until shortly before his crash, denied speeding or running stop signs, and claimed he did not endanger any other person. He also argued that he had a temporary license that had recently expired and was unaware his license was suspended.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Court of Appeals should certify to the Supreme Court the issue of compliance with the Law Enforcement Safe Pursuit Act as an element of aggravated fleeing.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for aggravated fleeing and driving on a suspended license.
• Whether the district court erred by denying the Defendant’s request for a lesser included offense instruction.
• Whether the district court erred by admitting evidence of the Defendant’s outstanding warrant.
• Whether the district court erred by denying the Defendant’s request for a continuance.

Disposition

• The conviction for driving on a suspended license was reversed.
• The conviction for aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals declined to certify the issue regarding the Law Enforcement Safe Pursuit Act to the Supreme Court, citing no new legislation or decisions that would question the precedent set by State v. Padilla. The Court found substantial evidence supporting the conviction for aggravated fleeing, noting the Defendant's dangerous driving behavior during the police pursuit. However, it reversed the conviction for driving on a suspended license due to insufficient evidence that the Defendant knew or should have known his license was suspended. The Court also found that the evidence did not support a lesser included offense instruction for reckless driving and that any error in admitting evidence of the Defendant's warrant was harmless. Lastly, the Court concluded that the Defendant did not demonstrate prejudice from the denial of his request for a continuance, thus affirming the aggravated fleeing conviction while reversing the conviction for driving on a suspended license (paras 8-32).