State v. Vest, 428 P.3d 287

In the early morning of Sept. 19, 2014, Officer Capraro pursued a Pontiac Vibe after a man said he had been threatened and forced from the vehicle; the officer engaged lights/siren and reached speeds over 70 mph on wet roads.
The pursued vehicle was later found crashed and abandoned after leaving the roadway and hitting a sign; Defendant Sean Vest was captured by a canine unit.
Vest was indicted for armed robbery and aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer (NMSA 1978, § 30-22-1.1); a jury acquitted him of armed robbery but convicted him of aggravated fleeing (a fourth-degree felony).
On appeal Vest argued the evidence was insufficient because the State failed to prove he actually endangered another person, and he also argued he was entitled to a lesser-included instruction (resisting/evading/obstructing officer).
The Court of Appeals held that the aggravated fleeing statute requires proof of actual endangerment (not merely potential danger) and concluded the State presented no evidence that Vest’s driving actually endangered any other person or the pursuing officer.
The court reversed the aggravated fleeing conviction and did not reach the lesser-included instruction issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 30-22-1.1 requires proof of actual endangerment	The State: culpability attaches when defendant willfully and carelessly drives in a manner that could result in harm; actual endangerment not required (focus on dangerous decision to flee).	Vest: statute requires actual endangerment; otherwise nearly all vehicular flight becomes aggravated fleeing and the statutory language loses effect.	Court: statute requires actual, current endangerment of another person; potential/future risk is insufficient.
Whether evidence proved endangerment for conviction	The State: high speed (70+ mph) on wet residential roads, crash into sign, leaving car in roadway created a potential for harm sufficient for aggravated fleeing.	Vest: record lacks any evidence he actually endangered other motorists, passengers, or the officer.	Court: Evidence insufficient—no proof Vest actually endangered any other person or the officer; conviction reversed.

State v. Padilla, 143 N.M. 310, 176 P.3d 299 (N.M. 2008) (legislature created aggravated fleeing to punish more severely conduct that endangers others)
State v. Duran, 140 N.M. 94, 140 P.3d 515 (N.M. 2006) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Trujillo, 146 N.M. 14, 206 P.3d 18 (N.M. 2009) (courts will not read into a clear statute words not present)
Clark v. Lovelace Health Sys., 136 N.M. 411, 99 P.3d 232 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004) (when statutory language is unambiguous courts apply it as written)
State v. Boyse, 303 P.3d 830 (N.M. 2013) (use of dictionary definitions to ascertain ordinary meaning of statutory terms)