flight instruction in Iowa

2016See, e.g., People v. Larson, 572 P.2d 815 , 817–18 (Colo. 1977) (en banc) (concluding a flight instruction is not error when the “defendant had reason to believe that he had committed a crime, that his identity was known, that his pursuit and apprehension would probably ensue, and that he fled or concealed himself for any length of time to frustrate this apprehension”); State v. Wrenn, 584 P.2d 1231, 1234 (Idaho 1978) (requiring “other circumstances present and unexplained which, together with the departure, reasonably justify an inference that it was done with a consciousness of guilt and in

2016See, e.g., People v. Larson, 572 P.2d 815 , 817–18 (Colo. 1977) (en banc) (concluding a flight instruction is not error when the “defendant had reason to believe that he had committed a crime, that his identity was known, that his pursuit and apprehension would probably ensue, and that he fled or concealed himself for any length of time to frustrate this apprehension”); State v. Wrenn, 584 P.2d 1231, 1234 (Idaho 1978) (requiring “other circumstances present and unexplained which, together with the departure, reasonably justify an inference that it was done with a consciousness of guilt and in

2016See, e.g., People v. Larson, 572 P.2d 815 , 817–18 (Colo. 1977) (en banc) (concluding a flight instruction is not error when the “defendant had reason to believe that he had committed a crime, that his identity was known, that his pursuit and apprehension would probably ensue, and that he fled or concealed himself for any length of time to frustrate this apprehension”); State v. Wrenn, 584 P.2d 1231, 1234 (Idaho 1978) (requiring “other circumstances present and unexplained which, together with the departure, reasonably justify an inference that it was done with a consciousness of guilt and in

2016See, e.g., People v. Larson, 572 P.2d 815 , 817–18 (Colo. 1977) (en banc) (concluding a flight instruction is not error when the “defendant had reason to believe that he had committed a crime, that his identity was known, that his pursuit and apprehension would probably ensue, and that he fled or concealed himself for any length of time to frustrate this apprehension”); State v. Wrenn, 584 P.2d 1231, 1234 (Idaho 1978) (requiring “other circumstances present and unexplained which, together with the departure, reasonably justify an inference that it was done with a consciousness of guilt and in

2016We adopted this approach to flight instructions in Bone. 429 N.W.2d at 126–27 (“Unless some evidence exists at the time of flight regarding an accusation of the specific crime charged, and the defendant’s flight is shown to be prompted by an awareness of that accusation and an effort to avoid apprehension or prosecution, it will be error to give a flight instruction.”). 15 United States v. Peltier, 585 F.2d 314, 323 (8th Cir. 1978) (“The validity of drawing these inferences in turn depends upon the number of evidentiary manifestations suggesting defendant’s decision to flee was prompted by con

2016We adopted this approach to flight instructions in Bone. 429 N.W.2d at 126–27 (“Unless some evidence exists at the time of flight regarding an accusation of the specific crime charged, and the defendant’s flight is shown to be prompted by an awareness of that accusation and an effort to avoid apprehension or prosecution, it will be error to give a flight instruction.”). 15 United States v. Peltier, 585 F.2d 314, 323 (8th Cir. 1978) (“The validity of drawing these inferences in turn depends upon the number of evidentiary manifestations suggesting defendant’s decision to flee was prompted by con

2016We adopted this approach to flight instructions in Bone. 429 N.W.2d at 126–27 (“Unless some evidence exists at the time of flight regarding an accusation of the specific crime charged, and the defendant’s flight is shown to be prompted by an awareness of that accusation and an effort to avoid apprehension or prosecution, it will be error to give a flight instruction.”). 15 United States v. Peltier, 585 F.2d 314, 323 (8th Cir. 1978) (“The validity of drawing these inferences in turn depends upon the number of evidentiary manifestations suggesting defendant’s decision to flee was prompted by con

2016We adopted this approach to flight instructions in Bone, 429 N.W.2d at 126-27 ("Unless some evidence exists at the time of flight regarding an accusation of the specific crime charged, and the defendant's flight is shown to be prompted by an awareness of that accusation and an effort to avoid apprehension or prosecution, it will be error to give a flight instruction,”). .

1970State v. Wimbush, [260] Iowa *152 [1262,] 150 N.W.2d 653, 656, 657 , and cases cited.” In holding instruction as to the effect of “flight” may be proper even though there is no direct evidence the accused fled to avoid arrest, we referred to the quote set out above from Bige and held evidence of defendant’s flight was admissible in such instances.

1970State v. Wimbush, Iowa, 150 N.W.2d 653, 656 , 657 and cases cited.

1984State v. Haskins, 316 N.W.2d 679, 681 (Iowa 1982); State v. Thrasher, 175 N.W.2d 397, 403 (Iowa 1970).

1984State v. Haskins, 316 N.W.2d 679, 681 (Iowa 1982); State v. Thrasher, 175 N.W.2d 397, 403 (Iowa 1970).

1984“It was for the jury to say, under all the circumstances, whether [defendant] departed because of his consciousness of guilt.” State v. Galvan, 181 N.W.2d 147, 151 (Iowa 1970) (quoting State v. Bige, 195 Iowa 1342, 1348 , 193 N.W. 17 , 20 (1923)).

1981“It was for the jury to say, under all the circumstances, whether he departed because of his consciousness of guilt.” State v. Bige, 195 Iowa 1342, 1348 , 193 N.W. 17 , 20 (1923), partially overruled on other grounds, State v. Johnson, 217 N.W.2d 609, 612 (Iowa 1975).