State v. Seay

(dissenting) :

While in agreement that the evidence was quite sufficient to support the conviction of the defendant-appellant, I am convinced that there was prejudicial error which should entitle the defendant to a new trial. The key factual issue in the case was whether Seay knew or had any reason to believe that he was being signalled to stop by a “law enforcement vehicle.” Such being the key issue, further recitation of facts disclosed by the record is indicated to better demonstrate wherein I think there was prejudicial error.

At about 5 o’clock on the afternoon of April 25, 1973 Major…