Background
Arizona Department of Public Safety detectives stopped Juan Javier Ortiz in a Kingman car wash in January 2024. Ortiz reversed his Ford Expedition into one detective’s unmarked police car, drove forward into another detective’s unmarked Dodge Charger, and fled. During the ensuing pursuit, Ortiz ran a stop sign and struck another car, killing its driver, S.B.
A jury convicted Ortiz of first-degree felony murder, two counts of aggravated assault, unlawful flight from a pursuing law-enforcement vehicle, and criminal damage. The superior court sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of release for the murder, along with concurrent and consecutive prison terms for the remaining offenses.
On appeal, Ortiz challenged evidence that he had previously fled from the same unmarked police vehicle, testimony that the vehicle was recognizable in the community as a police car, and evidence that he had an outstanding felony warrant. He also challenged the sufficiency of the aggravated-assault evidence and the absence of a lesser-included-offense instruction on disorderly conduct.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed Ortiz’s convictions and sentences. It held that evidence of Ortiz’s earlier January 2024 flight from the same unmarked Dodge Charger was relevant to whether he knew the vehicle was an official law-enforcement vehicle, an issue bearing on the unlawful-flight charge. Ortiz also failed to show that the evidence’s probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
The court likewise upheld testimony that people in the community recognized the unmarked Charger as a police vehicle because it was relevant to whether the vehicle was recognizable as such. Evidence of Ortiz’s outstanding felony warrant, admitted without objection, was relevant to whether and why he fled; Ortiz therefore failed to establish error, much less fundamental prejudicial error.
Sufficient evidence supported the aggravated-assault convictions because a detective testified that Ortiz’s use of his vehicle caused fear that either detective would be hurt and explained that ramming a vehicle is treated as lethal force. Finally, the superior court had no duty to give a disorderly-conduct instruction sua sponte when Ortiz did not request it and had expressly declined other lesser-included-offense instructions.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant’s prior flight from the same unmarked police vehicle may be admissible to prove knowledge that the vehicle was an official law-enforcement vehicle, rather than an improper propensity to flee.
- Officer testimony about fear of injury can support an aggravated-assault conviction based on reasonable apprehension, even without proof that the victims suffered physical injury.
- A trial court generally need not give an unrequested lesser-included-offense instruction sua sponte, particularly when the defendant has expressly rejected lesser-offense instructions.
Why It Matters
The memorandum decision illustrates how other-act evidence may be admitted for a non-propensity purpose when it directly bears on a statutory element such as knowledge. It also underscores the difficulty of obtaining fundamental-error relief when potentially prejudicial evidence was admitted without a trial objection.
The decision is designated not for official publication and is nonprecedential under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c), so it may be cited only as authorized by that rule.