Curtis Sagmoen - The Man Who Ran Over a Sex Worker Full Interrogation

During the trial, the sex worker testified Sagmoen arranged to receive sexual services from her on an out-call basis for an agreed-upon price.Show more

When she arrived at his rural property, Sagmoen was driving a quad. He asked her to follow him on a trail in her vehicle. After her vehicle got stuck in some sand, she agreed to ride with Sagmoen in the quad further up the trail.

When Sagmoen, who had not paid her, could not say where he lived, the worker became concerned. She told him she had other things to do and that “this is getting ridiculous.”

The sex worker said she had to go and ask Sagmoen to take her back to her car. When he started pulling fuses and wires out of the quad, she told him she would walk back to the car on her own. She declined his invitation to walk back to her vehicle through an unfamiliar trail in the woods. She told him she would walk down the same road they had used on the way up.

The trail she was on was 10 feet wide and that, by stepping to the edge of the road as Sagmoen approached from behind on the quad, she gave him “plenty of room” to pass by. He then hit her from behind.

“The force of the impact knocked the complainant out of her flip-flops and caused her to lose her keys. (Sagmoen) did not get off his quad, apologize or ask if she was okay,” according to the decision. It was also not dark enough that he couldn't see her.

“The complainant told the appellant that if he didn’t mean to hit her, he should help look for her keys. She testified that he remained on the quad and drove around slowly in what she considered to be a superficial effort to assist.”

Sagmoen also did not testify, meaning the the resolution of the case was “in large part” on the credibility of the sex worker, Fitch wrote.

“The appellant does not suggest the judge could not reasonably draw an inference that the appellant’s conduct in striking the complainant with the quad was intentional. Indeed, if the complainant’s evidence was believed, there was powerful evidence supporting such an inference," Fitch wrote, adding there was no evidence during the trial that supported the defense of an accident.

“To sum up, the judge found that the appellant drove the quad directly at the complainant with knowledge of the relevant circumstances and in a probable state of anger.”

Comment any request for content!

Live right now with endless interrogation footage!

For something a bit lighter!
24/7 Endless MoistCr1tikal Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/theclipkeeper

Any support goes a long way!
www.patreon.com/theclipkeeper

#TrueCrime #SexWorker #Interrogation