flight instruction in Maryland

2022See id. at 312 , 901 A.2d at 220 (noting that “a flight instruction should not be given unless the four inferences explicated in Myers reasonably may be drawn”).

2022See id. at 312 , 901 A.2d at 220 (noting that “a flight instruction should not be given unless the four inferences explicated in Myers reasonably may be drawn”).

2020In Hallowell v. State, we defined the circumstances under which a flight instruction is appropriate: The Court of Appeals has adopted the four-prong test from United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 1036, 1040 (5th Cir. 1977), in assessing whether a flight instruction is appropriate under the circumstances of a given case. [Thompson v. State, 393 Md. 291, 311 (2006) (citing Thomas v. State, 372 Md. 342 (2002)).] A flight instruction is permissible only if “the following four inferences” may reasonably be drawn “from the facts of the case as ultimately tried”: (1) “that the behavior of the defendant s

2019In Thompson, the Court held that the flight instruction was inappropriate unless the following four inferences could reasonably be drawn from the facts presented to the jury: that the behavior of the defendant suggests flight; that the flight suggests a consciousness of guilt; that the consciousness of guilt is related to the crime charged or a closely related crime; and that the consciousness of guilt of the crime charged suggests actual guilt of the crime charged or a closely related crime. 393 Md. at 312 (citing United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir.1977)).

2026There, we explained that an accused’s departure from the scene of a crime, without any attendant circumstances that reasonably justify an inference that the leaving was done with a consciousness of guilt and pursuant to an effort to avoid apprehension or prosecution based on that guilt, does not constitute “flight,” and thus does not warrant the giving of a flight instruction. 26 Id. at 325–26.

2020App. 292 , 323–26 (2008). “[E]vidence of flight is defined by two factors: first, that the defendant has moved from one location to another [i.e., “departure”]; second, some additional proof to suggest that this movement is not simply normal human locomotion.” Id. at 323 . “[A]n accused’s departure from the scene of a crime, without any attendant circumstances that reasonably justify an inference that the leaving was done with a consciousness of guilt and pursuant to an effort to avoid apprehension or prosecution based 30 on that guilt, does not constitute ‘flight,’ and thus does not warrant t

2009See United States v. Sanchez, 790 F.2d 245, 252 (2d Cir.1986) (holding that it was error for the trial court to “instruct[ ] the jury that it could equate the defendant’s nonappearance with ‘flight’ ” and requiring that any evidentiary predicate for a flight instruction must include “some evidence surrounding the failure to appear at trial”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted, emphasis in original); accord State v. Horne, 376 N.J.Super. 201 , 869 A.2d 955, 963 (2005); Commonwealth v. Muckle, 59 Mass.App.Ct. 631 , 797 N.E.2d 456, 460-62 (2003); Commonwealth v. Holloman, 424 Pa.Supe

2006See generally United States v. Sanchez, 790 F.2d 245 (2nd Cir.), cert denied, 479 U.S. 989 , 107 S.Ct. 584 , 93 L.Ed.2d 587 (1986) (applying Strickland, to defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim where defendant had absconded prior to trial and trial counsel’s participation was limited to objection to trial in absentia and a flight instruction and to moving for judgment of acquittal); Warner v. Ford, 752 F.2d 622 (11th Cir.1985) (applying Strickland to defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, where trial counsel’s participation was limited to a motion for a directed ver

2006Moreover, the Court held that “a flight instruction is improper unless the evidence is sufficient to furnish reasonable support for all four of the necessary inferences.” Id. at 1050 , citing Morris v. United States, 326 F.2d 192, 195 (9th Cir.1963); State v. Bruton, 66 Wash.2d 111 , 401 P.2d 340, 341-42 (1965); E.

2006Moreover, the Court held that “a flight instruction is improper unless the evidence is sufficient to furnish reasonable support for all four of the necessary inferences.” Id. at 1050 , citing Morris v. United States, 326 F.2d 192, 195 (9th Cir.1963); State v. Bruton, 66 Wash.2d 111 , 401 P.2d 340, 341-42 (1965); E.

2013“The flight doctrine has been applied to a broad spectrum of behavior occurring after the commission of a crime: ‘flight from the scene or from one’s usual haunts after the crime, assuming a false name, shaving off a beard, resisting arrest, attempting to bribe arresting officers, forfeiture of bond by failure to appear, escapes or attempted escapes from confinement, and attempts of the accused to take his own life.’ ” Sorrell v. State, 315 Md. 224, 228 , 554 A.2d 352 (1989) (quoting McCormick on Evidence § 271 at 803 (3rd ed.1984)).

2013“The flight doctrine has been applied to a broad spectrum of behavior occurring after the commission of a crime: ‘flight from the scene or from one’s usual haunts after the crime, assuming a false name, shaving off a beard, resisting arrest, attempting to bribe arresting officers, forfeiture of bond by failure to appear, escapes or attempted escapes from confinement, and attempts of the accused to take his own life.’ ” Sorrell v. State, 315 Md. 224, 228 , 554 A.2d 352 (1989) (quoting McCormick on Evidence § 271 at 803 (3rd ed.1984)).

2008The Supreme Court of Nebraska decided that a flight instruction was proper where the defendant’s conduct was “clearly sufficient to sustain an inference of flight as distinguished from mere departure from the scene of a crime.” Id.

2006The fact that the evidence might support an innocent explanation as well as an inference of a consciousness of guilt does not make an instruction on flight erroneous.”); Thomas v. State, 467 A.2d 954, 958 (Del.1983) ("A flight instruction is proper where there is evidence of flight or concealment and the evidence reasonably supports an inference that defendant fled because ‘of a consciousness of guilt and a desire to avoid an accusation based thereon, or for some other reason' ” (emphasis in original)); Territory v. Leong Kun, 29 Haw. 90, 96 (1926) (holding that the flight instruction was prop

2022This is unnecessary; it is the act of departure that is itself evidential; ignorance of the charge is merely a circumstance that tends to explain away the guilty significance of the conduct.”) (citing 2 Wigmore on Evidence § 276(a) at 116 (3d ed. 1940)); see also United States v. Williams, 775 F.2d 1295, 1300 (5th Cir. 1985) (upholding a flight instruction despite no evidence that defendant was aware of a criminal investigation at the moment of flight); United States v. Peltier, 585 F.2d 314, 323 (8th Cir. 1978) (rejecting the argument that defendant must be charged with a crime or suspected t

2022This is unnecessary; it is the act of departure that is itself evidential; ignorance of the charge is merely a circumstance that tends to explain away the guilty significance of the conduct.”) (citing 2 Wigmore on Evidence § 276(a) at 116 (3d ed. 1940)); see also United States v. Williams, 775 F.2d 1295, 1300 (5th Cir. 1985) (upholding a flight instruction despite no evidence that defendant was aware of a criminal investigation at the moment of flight); United States v. Peltier, 585 F.2d 314, 323 (8th Cir. 1978) (rejecting the argument that defendant must be charged with a crime or suspected t

2022This is unnecessary; it is the act of departure that is itself evidential; ignorance of the charge is merely a circumstance that tends to explain away the guilty significance of the conduct.”) (citing 2 Wigmore on Evidence § 276(a) at 116 (3d ed. 1940)); see also United States v. Williams, 775 F.2d 1295, 1300 (5th Cir. 1985) (upholding a flight instruction despite no evidence that defendant was aware of a criminal investigation at the moment of flight); United States v. Peltier, 585 F.2d 314, 323 (8th Cir. 1978) (rejecting the argument that defendant must be charged with a crime or suspected t

2022App. 648 , 655‒56, 114 A.3d 283, 296 (2015), that found it “fair to presume” that a defendant would know he is wanted by law enforcement after committing a crime in public view.

2021In such a case, a flight instruction does not “aid the jury in clearly understanding the case, … provide guidance for the jury’s deliberations, and … help the jury arrive at a correct verdict,” Chambers v. State, 337 Md. 44, 48 (1994), and therefore generally should not be given.

2020The bottom line, as set out by the Supreme Court of California in People v. Avila, 208 P.3d 634, 662 (Cal. 2009), is that “a flight instruction does not create an unconstitutional permissive inference or lessen the prosecutor’s burden of proof, and is proper even when identity is at issue.” (Emphasis added).

2020See also People v. Mason, 802 P.2d 950 (Cal. 1991).

2020In Hallowell v. State, we defined the circumstances under which a flight instruction is appropriate: The Court of Appeals has adopted the four-prong test from United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 1036, 1040 (5th Cir. 1977), in assessing whether a flight instruction is appropriate under the circumstances of a given case. [Thompson v. State, 393 Md. 291, 311 (2006) (citing Thomas v. State, 372 Md. 342 (2002)).] A flight instruction is permissible only if “the following four inferences” may reasonably be drawn “from the facts of the case as ultimately tried”: (1) “that the behavior of the defendant s

2011(Emphasis added and citations omitted.) 315 Md. 224, 228 , 554 A.2d 352, 353-54 (1989); see also U.S. v. Latney, 108 F.3d 1446, 1449-50 (D.C.Cir.1997) (“[L]ater acts are most likely to show the accused’s intent when they are fairly recent and in some significant way connected with prior material events!.]” (citations omitted)); Cash v. U.S., 700 A.2d 1208, 1212 (D.C.1997) (“Evidence of a subsequent act, if connected in some material way with the event in question, can be probative of a prior state of mind.”); Commonwealth v. Oliver, 443 Mass. 1005 , 820 N.E.2d 194 (2005) (holding that the appe

2011(Emphasis added and citations omitted.) 315 Md. 224, 228 , 554 A.2d 352, 353-54 (1989); see also U.S. v. Latney, 108 F.3d 1446, 1449-50 (D.C.Cir.1997) (“[L]ater acts are most likely to show the accused’s intent when they are fairly recent and in some significant way connected with prior material events!.]” (citations omitted)); Cash v. U.S., 700 A.2d 1208, 1212 (D.C.1997) (“Evidence of a subsequent act, if connected in some material way with the event in question, can be probative of a prior state of mind.”); Commonwealth v. Oliver, 443 Mass. 1005 , 820 N.E.2d 194 (2005) (holding that the appe

2011(Emphasis added and citations omitted.) 315 Md. 224, 228 , 554 A.2d 352, 353-54 (1989); see also U.S. v. Latney, 108 F.3d 1446, 1449-50 (D.C.Cir.1997) (“[L]ater acts are most likely to show the accused’s intent when they are fairly recent and in some significant way connected with prior material events!.]” (citations omitted)); Cash v. U.S., 700 A.2d 1208, 1212 (D.C.1997) (“Evidence of a subsequent act, if connected in some material way with the event in question, can be probative of a prior state of mind.”); Commonwealth v. Oliver, 443 Mass. 1005 , 820 N.E.2d 194 (2005) (holding that the appe

2011(Emphasis added and citations omitted.) 315 Md. 224, 228 , 554 A.2d 352, 353-54 (1989); see also U.S. v. Latney, 108 F.3d 1446, 1449-50 (D.C.Cir.1997) (“[L]ater acts are most likely to show the accused’s intent when they are fairly recent and in some significant way connected with prior material events!.]” (citations omitted)); Cash v. U.S., 700 A.2d 1208, 1212 (D.C.1997) (“Evidence of a subsequent act, if connected in some material way with the event in question, can be probative of a prior state of mind.”); Commonwealth v. Oliver, 443 Mass. 1005 , 820 N.E.2d 194 (2005) (holding that the appe

2009See United States v. Sanchez, 790 F.2d 245, 252 (2d Cir.1986) (holding that it was error for the trial court to “instruct[ ] the jury that it could equate the defendant’s nonappearance with ‘flight’ ” and requiring that any evidentiary predicate for a flight instruction must include “some evidence surrounding the failure to appear at trial”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted, emphasis in original); accord State v. Horne, 376 N.J.Super. 201 , 869 A.2d 955, 963 (2005); Commonwealth v. Muckle, 59 Mass.App.Ct. 631 , 797 N.E.2d 456, 460-62 (2003); Commonwealth v. Holloman, 424 Pa.Supe

2009See United States v. Sanchez, 790 F.2d 245, 252 (2d Cir.1986) (holding that it was error for the trial court to “instruct[ ] the jury that it could equate the defendant’s nonappearance with ‘flight’ ” and requiring that any evidentiary predicate for a flight instruction must include “some evidence surrounding the failure to appear at trial”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted, emphasis in original); accord State v. Horne, 376 N.J.Super. 201 , 869 A.2d 955, 963 (2005); Commonwealth v. Muckle, 59 Mass.App.Ct. 631 , 797 N.E.2d 456, 460-62 (2003); Commonwealth v. Holloman, 424 Pa.Supe

2009See United States v. Sanchez, 790 F.2d 245, 252 (2d Cir.1986) (holding that it was error for the trial court to “instruct[ ] the jury that it could equate the defendant’s nonappearance with ‘flight’ ” and requiring that any evidentiary predicate for a flight instruction must include “some evidence surrounding the failure to appear at trial”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted, emphasis in original); accord State v. Horne, 376 N.J.Super. 201 , 869 A.2d 955, 963 (2005); Commonwealth v. Muckle, 59 Mass.App.Ct. 631 , 797 N.E.2d 456, 460-62 (2003); Commonwealth v. Holloman, 424 Pa.Supe

2009See United States v. Sanchez, 790 F.2d 245, 252 (2d Cir.1986) (holding that it was error for the trial court to “instruct[ ] the jury that it could equate the defendant’s nonappearance with ‘flight’ ” and requiring that any evidentiary predicate for a flight instruction must include “some evidence surrounding the failure to appear at trial”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted, emphasis in original); accord State v. Horne, 376 N.J.Super. 201 , 869 A.2d 955, 963 (2005); Commonwealth v. Muckle, 59 Mass.App.Ct. 631 , 797 N.E.2d 456, 460-62 (2003); Commonwealth v. Holloman, 424 Pa.Supe

2009See United States v. Sanchez, 790 F.2d 245, 252 (2d Cir.1986) (holding that it was error for the trial court to “instruct[ ] the jury that it could equate the defendant’s nonappearance with ‘flight’ ” and requiring that any evidentiary predicate for a flight instruction must include “some evidence surrounding the failure to appear at trial”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted, emphasis in original); accord State v. Horne, 376 N.J.Super. 201 , 869 A.2d 955, 963 (2005); Commonwealth v. Muckle, 59 Mass.App.Ct. 631 , 797 N.E.2d 456, 460-62 (2003); Commonwealth v. Holloman, 424 Pa.Supe

2009See United States v. Sanchez, 790 F.2d 245, 252 (2d Cir.1986) (holding that it was error for the trial court to “instruct[ ] the jury that it could equate the defendant’s nonappearance with ‘flight’ ” and requiring that any evidentiary predicate for a flight instruction must include “some evidence surrounding the failure to appear at trial”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted, emphasis in original); accord State v. Horne, 376 N.J.Super. 201 , 869 A.2d 955, 963 (2005); Commonwealth v. Muckle, 59 Mass.App.Ct. 631 , 797 N.E.2d 456, 460-62 (2003); Commonwealth v. Holloman, 424 Pa.Supe

2009See United States v. Sanchez, 790 F.2d 245, 252 (2d Cir.1986) (holding that it was error for the trial court to “instruct[ ] the jury that it could equate the defendant’s nonappearance with ‘flight’ ” and requiring that any evidentiary predicate for a flight instruction must include “some evidence surrounding the failure to appear at trial”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted, emphasis in original); accord State v. Horne, 376 N.J.Super. 201 , 869 A.2d 955, 963 (2005); Commonwealth v. Muckle, 59 Mass.App.Ct. 631 , 797 N.E.2d 456, 460-62 (2003); Commonwealth v. Holloman, 424 Pa.Supe

2009See United States v. Sanchez, 790 F.2d 245, 252 (2d Cir.1986) (holding that it was error for the trial court to “instruct[ ] the jury that it could equate the defendant’s nonappearance with ‘flight’ ” and requiring that any evidentiary predicate for a flight instruction must include “some evidence surrounding the failure to appear at trial”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted, emphasis in original); accord State v. Horne, 376 N.J.Super. 201 , 869 A.2d 955, 963 (2005); Commonwealth v. Muckle, 59 Mass.App.Ct. 631 , 797 N.E.2d 456, 460-62 (2003); Commonwealth v. Holloman, 424 Pa.Supe

2009See United States v. Sanchez, 790 F.2d 245, 252 (2d Cir.1986) (holding that it was error for the trial court to “instruct[ ] the jury that it could equate the defendant’s nonappearance with ‘flight’ ” and requiring that any evidentiary predicate for a flight instruction must include “some evidence surrounding the failure to appear at trial”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted, emphasis in original); accord State v. Horne, 376 N.J.Super. 201 , 869 A.2d 955, 963 (2005); Commonwealth v. Muckle, 59 Mass.App.Ct. 631 , 797 N.E.2d 456, 460-62 (2003); Commonwealth v. Holloman, 424 Pa.Supe

2009See United States v. Sanchez, 790 F.2d 245, 252 (2d Cir.1986) (holding that it was error for the trial court to “instruct[ ] the jury that it could equate the defendant’s nonappearance with ‘flight’ ” and requiring that any evidentiary predicate for a flight instruction must include “some evidence surrounding the failure to appear at trial”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted, emphasis in original); accord State v. Horne, 376 N.J.Super. 201 , 869 A.2d 955, 963 (2005); Commonwealth v. Muckle, 59 Mass.App.Ct. 631 , 797 N.E.2d 456, 460-62 (2003); Commonwealth v. Holloman, 424 Pa.Supe

2009See United States v. Sanchez, 790 F.2d 245, 252 (2d Cir.1986) (holding that it was error for the trial court to “instruct[ ] the jury that it could equate the defendant’s nonappearance with ‘flight’ ” and requiring that any evidentiary predicate for a flight instruction must include “some evidence surrounding the failure to appear at trial”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted, emphasis in original); accord State v. Horne, 376 N.J.Super. 201 , 869 A.2d 955, 963 (2005); Commonwealth v. Muckle, 59 Mass.App.Ct. 631 , 797 N.E.2d 456, 460-62 (2003); Commonwealth v. Holloman, 424 Pa.Supe

2009See United States v. Sanchez, 790 F.2d 245, 252 (2d Cir.1986) (holding that it was error for the trial court to “instruct[ ] the jury that it could equate the defendant’s nonappearance with ‘flight’ ” and requiring that any evidentiary predicate for a flight instruction must include “some evidence surrounding the failure to appear at trial”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted, emphasis in original); accord State v. Horne, 376 N.J.Super. 201 , 869 A.2d 955, 963 (2005); Commonwealth v. Muckle, 59 Mass.App.Ct. 631 , 797 N.E.2d 456, 460-62 (2003); Commonwealth v. Holloman, 424 Pa.Supe