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 July 16, 2017, a vehicle was reported stolen by Daniel Kilmer while he was inside a convenience store. Defendant Ricky Sena was identified driving the stolen vehicle and did not stop when pursued by law enforcement, leading them on a chase through city roads and endangering the lives of others before being apprehended (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State did not present sufficient evidence to support his conviction for aggravated fleeing of law enforcement and that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a change in venue due to pretrial publicity (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a change of venue (paras 5, 10-15).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated fleeing of law enforcement.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the Defendant's motion for a change in venue due to pretrial publicity.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the Defendant's conviction for battery, unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer, and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer (para 1).

Reasons

• Per HENDERSON, J., with VARGAS, J., and BOGARDUS, J., concurring:
  The Court found substantial evidence supporting the Defendant's conviction for aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer, including testimony and dash camera footage showing the Defendant driving in a manner that endangered the lives of others (paras 6-9).
  Regarding the motion for a change of venue, the Court determined that the Defendant did not demonstrate actual or presumptive prejudice due to pretrial publicity. The Defendant failed to explore potential juror biases during voir dire, and no evidence was presented to suggest that the impaneled jurors were prejudiced against him. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a change of venue (paras 10-16).