flight instruction in Mississippi

2016In Pannell v. State, this Court reversed an aggravated assault conviction because “there is absolutely no foundation in the record before us on which to base a flight instruction.” Pannell v. State, 455 So. 2d 785, 788 (Miss. 1984).

2016In Pannell v. State, this Court reversed an aggravated assault conviction because “there is absolutely no foundation in the record before us on which to base a flight instruction.” Pannell v. State, 455 So. 2d 785, 788 (Miss. 1984).

2015We held in that case that “Where the defendant is arguing self-defense, a flight instruction should be automatically ruled out and found to be of no probative value.” Id. at 751 (emphasis added); accord Tran v. State, 681 So.2d 514, 519 (Miss.1996) (“Because Tran was arguing self-defense and the jury heard the testimony on Tran’s flight, it was free to draw its own conclusions as to the flight[’s] significance.

2015See also Ervin v. State, 136 So.3d 1053, 1056-1060 (Miss.2014) (finding (1) guard’s inability to identify Ervin as the prisoner who escaped from a hospital while in his custody and (2) evidence that Ervin hid in an attic to avoid arrest by federal marshals for unknown charges unrelated to the armed robbery for which he was being tried, failed to provide evidentiary support for the giving of a flight instruction); Banks v. State, 631 So.2d 748, 748-49 (Miss.1994) (finding error in the trial judge's excluding evidence of defendant’s explanation for his flight but still granting a flight instruct

2025But that is an explanation for why the assault occurred, not why he 4 The State’s original S-4 was amended to remove references to “hiding.” 5 Ford, 206 So. 3d at 493 (¶20) (quoting United States v. Benedetti, 433 F.3d 111, 116 (1st Cir. 2005)); see also Ervin v. State, 136 So. 3d 1053, 1059-60 (¶20) (Miss. 2014) (reversing on other grounds but noting “the questionable wisdom” in granting a flight instruction); Randolph v. State, 852 So. 2d 547, 567-68 (¶70) (Miss. 2002) (Carlson, J., specially concurring) (“While I agree . . . that the giving of the ‘flight instruction’ was proper, based on t

2016The Court then cited some language from separate opinions in prior cases expressing judicial reservations regarding the granting of flight instructions: 25 “[T]he use of the flight instruction in this state can be described in one word—‘dangerous.’” Randolph v. State, 852 So. 2d 547, 567 (Miss. 2002) (Carlson, J., specially concurring, joined by Smith, P.J., Waller, and Cobb, JJ.). “[A] trial court, by giving a flight instruction, simply puts itself in a position of possibly placing a reversible error in an otherwise clean record.

2015See Fuselier v. State, 468 So. 2d 45 (Miss. 1985) (Fuselier I ) (“Here, because the court was aware of an explanation for Fuselier’s flight, which was at that time inadmissible, we are of the opinion 29 that the flight instruction should not have been granted.”); accord Liggins v. State, 726 So. 2d 180 (Miss. 1998) (“Evidence of flight is inadmissible where, as in this case, there is an independent reason for flight known by the court which cannot be explained to the jury because of its prejudicial effect upon the defendant.”); Banks v. State, 631 So. 2d 748, 751 (Miss. 1994) (“The present cas

2015To follow that up with a flight instruction—calling special attention to a particular inference that one side would like to jury to make—is, in my 18 See Ervin v. State, 136 So. 3d 1053, 1060 (Miss. 2014); Randolph v. State, 852 So. 2d 547 (Miss. 2002); Banks v. State, 631 So. 2d 748 (Miss. 1994); Fuselier v. State, 468 So. 2d 45 (Miss. 1985); Pannell v. State, 455 So. 2d 785, 789 (Miss. 1984); Craft v. State, 271 So. 2d 735 (Miss. 1973); Quarles v. State, 199 So. 2d 58 (Miss. 1967); Eubanks v. State, 227 Miss. 162 , 85 So. 2d 805 (1956). 24 view, unfair.

2015See Harrell v. State, 134 So.3d 266, 276 (Miss.2014) (finding no error in the grant of a flight instruction); accord Shumpert v. State, 935 So.2d 962, 970 (Miss.2006); accord Walker v. State, 913 So.2d 198, 234 (Miss.2005); Randolph v. State, 852 So.2d 547, 566 (Miss.2002) (“The trial court did not err in admitting the flight evidence and instructions.... ”); Wall v. State, 718 So.2d 1107, 1112 (Miss.1998) (finding that because the defendant provided no excuse and that his flight was probative of guilty knowledge “the flight instruction was appropriate”); accord Warren v. State, 709 So.2d 415,

2015Prosecutors may obtain a flight instruction only if “that flight is unexplained and somehow probative of guilt or guilty knowledge.” Reynolds, 658 So.2d at 856 . “[Fjlight is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn and considered along with all the other facts and circumstances connected with the case.” Randolph, 852 So.2d at 564 . ¶ 25.

2015We held in that case that “Where the defendant is arguing self-defense, a flight instruction should be automatically ruled out and found to be of no probative value.” Id. at 751 (emphasis added); accord Tran v. State, 681 So.2d 514, 519 (Miss.1996) (“Because Tran was arguing self-defense and the jury heard the testimony on Tran’s flight, it was free to draw its own conclusions as to the flight[’s] significance.

2015In so finding, the Court stated: 7 Shumpert v. State, 935 So. 2d 962 (Miss. 2006); Tran v. State, 681 So. 2d 514 (Miss. 1996); Banks v. State, 631 So. 2d 748 (Miss. 1994). 7 A flight instruction will have particular prejudicial effect in a case where self-defense is argued.

2015See Harrell v. State, 134 So. 3d 266, 276 (Miss. 2014) (finding no error in the grant of a flight instruction); accord Shumpert v. State, 935 So. 2d 962, 970 (Miss. 2006); accord Walker v. State, 913 So. 2d 198, 234 (Miss. 2005); Randolph v. State, 852 So. 2d 547, 566 (Miss. 2002) (“The trial court did not err in admitting the flight evidence and instructions . . . .”); Wall v. State, 718 So. 2d 1107, 1112 (Miss. 1998) (finding that because the defendant provided no excuse and that his flight was probative of guilty knowledge “the flight instruction was appropriate”); accord Warren, 709 So. 2d

2015See Harrell v. State, 134 So.3d 266, 276 (Miss.2014) (finding no error in the grant of a flight instruction); accord Shumpert v. State, 935 So.2d 962, 970 (Miss.2006); accord Walker v. State, 913 So.2d 198, 234 (Miss.2005); Randolph v. State, 852 So.2d 547, 566 (Miss.2002) (“The trial court did not err in admitting the flight evidence and instructions.... ”); Wall v. State, 718 So.2d 1107, 1112 (Miss.1998) (finding that because the defendant provided no excuse and that his flight was probative of guilty knowledge “the flight instruction was appropriate”); accord Warren v. State, 709 So.2d 415,

2013However, a flight instruction “is appropriate only where that flight is unexplained and somehow probative of guilt or guilty knowledge.” Id. (quoting Reynolds v. State, 658 So.2d 852, 856 (Miss.1995)).

2012When determining whether a flight instruction is appropriate, “two considerations are paramount: (1) only unexplained flight merits a flight instruction, and (2) flight instructions are to be given only in cases where that circumstance has considerable probative value.” Fuselier v. State, 702 So.2d 388, 390 (¶ 4) (Miss.1997).

2015See Drummer v. State, 167 So.3d 1180, 1186 (¶ 19) (Miss.2015) (giving a flight instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion); Austin v. State, 784 So.2d 186, 193 (¶ 23) (Miss.2001) (admission of flight evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion); Mack v. State, 650 So.2d 1289, 1310 (Miss.1994) (recognizing that the admissibility of flight evidence and the propriety of a flight instruction raise essentially the same question).

2015The State responded, “This is the first we’ve heard about any accident.” The only “evidence” that 19 See Drummer v. State, 167 So. 3d 1180, 1186 (¶19) (Miss. 2015) (giving a flight instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion); Austin v. State, 784 So. 2d 186, 193 (¶23) (Miss. 2001) (admission of flight evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion); Mack v. State, 650 So. 2d 1289, 1310 (Miss. 1994) (recognizing that the admissibility of flight evidence and the propriety of a flight instruction raise essentially the same question). 47 Kuebler eventually offered consisted of the bare allegati

2026Since Alberty and Allen, this Court has held that admitting a flight instruction “is permitted only when (1) the flight is unexplained, and (2) the circumstance of flight has considerable probative value of guilt or guilty knowledge.” Harrell v. State, 134 So. 3d 266, 275 (Miss. 2014) (first citing States v. State, 88 So. 3d 749, 757 (Miss. 2012); and then citing Austin v. State, 784 So. 2d 186 , 194 23 (Miss. 2001)).13 ¶54.

2016The Court has adopted a two-prong test for evaluating flight instructions: “(1) Only unexplained flight merits a flight instruction; and (2) flight instructions are to be given only in cases where that circumstance has considerable probative value.” States v. State, 88 So. 3d 749, 758 (¶ 36) (Miss. 2012). ¶22.

2026Since Alberty and Allen, this Court has held that admitting a flight instruction “is permitted only when (1) the flight is unexplained, and (2) the circumstance of flight has considerable probative value of guilt or guilty knowledge.” Harrell v. State, 134 So. 3d 266, 275 (Miss. 2014) (first citing States v. State, 88 So. 3d 749, 757 (Miss. 2012); and then citing Austin v. State, 784 So. 2d 186 , 194 23 (Miss. 2001)).13 ¶54.

2015See Drummer v. State, 167 So.3d 1180, 1186 (¶ 19) (Miss.2015) (giving a flight instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion); Austin v. State, 784 So.2d 186, 193 (¶ 23) (Miss.2001) (admission of flight evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion); Mack v. State, 650 So.2d 1289, 1310 (Miss.1994) (recognizing that the admissibility of flight evidence and the propriety of a flight instruction raise essentially the same question).

2015See Harrell v. State, 134 So.3d 266, 276 (Miss.2014) (finding no error in the grant of a flight instruction); accord Shumpert v. State, 935 So.2d 962, 970 (Miss.2006); accord Walker v. State, 913 So.2d 198, 234 (Miss.2005); Randolph v. State, 852 So.2d 547, 566 (Miss.2002) (“The trial court did not err in admitting the flight evidence and instructions.... ”); Wall v. State, 718 So.2d 1107, 1112 (Miss.1998) (finding that because the defendant provided no excuse and that his flight was probative of guilty knowledge “the flight instruction was appropriate”); accord Warren v. State, 709 So.2d 415,

2015Randolph, 852 So.2d at 567-68 (Carlson, J., specially concurring) (internal citations omitted); accord States, 88 So.3d at 759 (Carlson, P.J., specially concurring) (“[Pjrosecutors tread on thin ice each time they persist in submitting a flight instruction.”); Shumpert v. State, 935 So.2d 962, 973 (Miss.2006) (Carlson, J., specially concurring) (“[T]he State is rolling the dice, as far as potential reversible error, each time it submits a proposed flight instruction to the trial judge for consideration.”); Pannell, 455 So.2d at 789 (Hawkins, J., specially concurring) (“[A] so-called ‘flight’ i

2015See Drummer v. State, 167 So.3d 1180, 1186 (¶ 19) (Miss.2015) (giving a flight instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion); Austin v. State, 784 So.2d 186, 193 (¶ 23) (Miss.2001) (admission of flight evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion); Mack v. State, 650 So.2d 1289, 1310 (Miss.1994) (recognizing that the admissibility of flight evidence and the propriety of a flight instruction raise essentially the same question).

2015The State responded, “This is the first we’ve heard about any accident.” The only “evidence” that 19 See Drummer v. State, 167 So. 3d 1180, 1186 (¶19) (Miss. 2015) (giving a flight instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion); Austin v. State, 784 So. 2d 186, 193 (¶23) (Miss. 2001) (admission of flight evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion); Mack v. State, 650 So. 2d 1289, 1310 (Miss. 1994) (recognizing that the admissibility of flight evidence and the propriety of a flight instruction raise essentially the same question). 47 Kuebler eventually offered consisted of the bare allegati

2025But that is an explanation for why the assault occurred, not why he 4 The State’s original S-4 was amended to remove references to “hiding.” 5 Ford, 206 So. 3d at 493 (¶20) (quoting United States v. Benedetti, 433 F.3d 111, 116 (1st Cir. 2005)); see also Ervin v. State, 136 So. 3d 1053, 1059-60 (¶20) (Miss. 2014) (reversing on other grounds but noting “the questionable wisdom” in granting a flight instruction); Randolph v. State, 852 So. 2d 547, 567-68 (¶70) (Miss. 2002) (Carlson, J., specially concurring) (“While I agree . . . that the giving of the ‘flight instruction’ was proper, based on t

2016This Court considered whether a flight instruction was warranted in a case in which “the ‘hiding’ at the time of arrest occurred more than three weeks after the armed robbery.” Ervin v. State, 136 So. 3d 1053, 1060 (Miss. 2014) (emphasis in original).

2016See United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 1036, 1051 (5th Cir.1977) (“The more remote in time the alleged flight is from the commission or accusation of an offense, the greater the likelihood that it resulted from something other than feelings of guilt concerning that offense.”).

2016See United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 1036, 1051 (5th Cir.1977) (“The more remote in time the alleged flight is from the commission or accusation of an offense, the greater the likelihood that it resulted from something other than feelings of guilt concerning that offense.”).

2011See Kolberg v. State, 829 So.2d 29, 49 (Miss.2002). ¶ 43.

2011See Kolberg v. State, 829 So.2d 29, 49 (Miss.2002). ¶ 43.

2015The trial court determined that, because there was sufficient evidence of flight and because “there’s no explanation offered by the defense or anybody on the defendant’s behalf,” the instruction was warranted. 12 excuse of “fear” not a legal explanation in light of the facts and that the trial judge therefore properly granted a flight instruction); Brock v. State, 530 So. 2d 146, 153 (Miss. 1988) (affirming the grant of a flight instruction); Clark v. State, 503 So. 2d 277, 280 (Miss. 1987) (“[T]he trial court acted properly in granting the flight instruction.”); accord Pharr v. State, 465 So.

2015See Harrell v. State, 134 So.3d 266, 276 (Miss.2014) (finding no error in the grant of a flight instruction); accord Shumpert v. State, 935 So.2d 962, 970 (Miss.2006); accord Walker v. State, 913 So.2d 198, 234 (Miss.2005); Randolph v. State, 852 So.2d 547, 566 (Miss.2002) (“The trial court did not err in admitting the flight evidence and instructions.... ”); Wall v. State, 718 So.2d 1107, 1112 (Miss.1998) (finding that because the defendant provided no excuse and that his flight was probative of guilty knowledge “the flight instruction was appropriate”); accord Warren v. State, 709 So.2d 415,

2012However, a flight instruction “is appropriate only where that flight is unexplained and somehow probative of guilt or guilty knowledge.” Id. (quoting Reynolds v. State, 658 So.2d 852, 856 (Miss.1995)).

2009However, a flight instruction “is appropriate only where that flight is unexplained and somehow probative of guilt or guilty knowledge.” Id. (quoting Reynolds v. State, 658 So.2d 852, 856 (Miss.1995)).

2015The trial court determined that, because there was sufficient evidence of flight and because “there’s no explanation offered by the defense or anybody on the defendant’s behalf,” the instruction was warranted. 12 excuse of “fear” not a legal explanation in light of the facts and that the trial judge therefore properly granted a flight instruction); Brock v. State, 530 So. 2d 146, 153 (Miss. 1988) (affirming the grant of a flight instruction); Clark v. State, 503 So. 2d 277, 280 (Miss. 1987) (“[T]he trial court acted properly in granting the flight instruction.”); accord Pharr v. State, 465 So.

2015See Harrell v. State, 134 So.3d 266, 276 (Miss.2014) (finding no error in the grant of a flight instruction); accord Shumpert v. State, 935 So.2d 962, 970 (Miss.2006); accord Walker v. State, 913 So.2d 198, 234 (Miss.2005); Randolph v. State, 852 So.2d 547, 566 (Miss.2002) (“The trial court did not err in admitting the flight evidence and instructions.... ”); Wall v. State, 718 So.2d 1107, 1112 (Miss.1998) (finding that because the defendant provided no excuse and that his flight was probative of guilty knowledge “the flight instruction was appropriate”); accord Warren v. State, 709 So.2d 415,

2015See Harrell v. State, 134 So. 3d 266, 276 (Miss. 2014) (finding no error in the grant of a flight instruction); accord Shumpert v. State, 935 So. 2d 962, 970 (Miss. 2006); accord Walker v. State, 913 So. 2d 198, 234 (Miss. 2005); Randolph v. State, 852 So. 2d 547, 566 (Miss. 2002) (“The trial court did not err in admitting the flight evidence and instructions . . . .”); Wall v. State, 718 So. 2d 1107, 1112 (Miss. 1998) (finding that because the defendant provided no excuse and that his flight was probative of guilty knowledge “the flight instruction was appropriate”); accord Warren, 709 So. 2d

2015See Harrell v. State, 134 So.3d 266, 276 (Miss.2014) (finding no error in the grant of a flight instruction); accord Shumpert v. State, 935 So.2d 962, 970 (Miss.2006); accord Walker v. State, 913 So.2d 198, 234 (Miss.2005); Randolph v. State, 852 So.2d 547, 566 (Miss.2002) (“The trial court did not err in admitting the flight evidence and instructions.... ”); Wall v. State, 718 So.2d 1107, 1112 (Miss.1998) (finding that because the defendant provided no excuse and that his flight was probative of guilty knowledge “the flight instruction was appropriate”); accord Warren v. State, 709 So.2d 415,

2015See Harrell v. State, 134 So.3d 266, 276 (Miss.2014) (finding no error in the grant of a flight instruction); accord Shumpert v. State, 935 So.2d 962, 970 (Miss.2006); accord Walker v. State, 913 So.2d 198, 234 (Miss.2005); Randolph v. State, 852 So.2d 547, 566 (Miss.2002) (“The trial court did not err in admitting the flight evidence and instructions.... ”); Wall v. State, 718 So.2d 1107, 1112 (Miss.1998) (finding that because the defendant provided no excuse and that his flight was probative of guilty knowledge “the flight instruction was appropriate”); accord Warren v. State, 709 So.2d 415,

2015See Harrell v. State, 134 So.3d 266, 276 (Miss.2014) (finding no error in the grant of a flight instruction); accord Shumpert v. State, 935 So.2d 962, 970 (Miss.2006); accord Walker v. State, 913 So.2d 198, 234 (Miss.2005); Randolph v. State, 852 So.2d 547, 566 (Miss.2002) (“The trial court did not err in admitting the flight evidence and instructions.... ”); Wall v. State, 718 So.2d 1107, 1112 (Miss.1998) (finding that because the defendant provided no excuse and that his flight was probative of guilty knowledge “the flight instruction was appropriate”); accord Warren v. State, 709 So.2d 415,

2015See Harrell v. State, 134 So.3d 266, 276 (Miss.2014) (finding no error in the grant of a flight instruction); accord Shumpert v. State, 935 So.2d 962, 970 (Miss.2006); accord Walker v. State, 913 So.2d 198, 234 (Miss.2005); Randolph v. State, 852 So.2d 547, 566 (Miss.2002) (“The trial court did not err in admitting the flight evidence and instructions.... ”); Wall v. State, 718 So.2d 1107, 1112 (Miss.1998) (finding that because the defendant provided no excuse and that his flight was probative of guilty knowledge “the flight instruction was appropriate”); accord Warren v. State, 709 So.2d 415,

2015See Harrell v. State, 134 So.3d 266, 276 (Miss.2014) (finding no error in the grant of a flight instruction); accord Shumpert v. State, 935 So.2d 962, 970 (Miss.2006); accord Walker v. State, 913 So.2d 198, 234 (Miss.2005); Randolph v. State, 852 So.2d 547, 566 (Miss.2002) (“The trial court did not err in admitting the flight evidence and instructions.... ”); Wall v. State, 718 So.2d 1107, 1112 (Miss.1998) (finding that because the defendant provided no excuse and that his flight was probative of guilty knowledge “the flight instruction was appropriate”); accord Warren v. State, 709 So.2d 415,

2015See Harrell v. State, 134 So. 3d 266, 276 (Miss. 2014) (finding no error in the grant of a flight instruction); accord Shumpert v. State, 935 So. 2d 962, 970 (Miss. 2006); accord Walker v. State, 913 So. 2d 198, 234 (Miss. 2005); Randolph v. State, 852 So. 2d 547, 566 (Miss. 2002) (“The trial court did not err in admitting the flight evidence and instructions . . . .”); Wall v. State, 718 So. 2d 1107, 1112 (Miss. 1998) (finding that because the defendant provided no excuse and that his flight was probative of guilty knowledge “the flight instruction was appropriate”); accord Warren, 709 So. 2d

2015See Harrell v. State, 134 So.3d 266, 276 (Miss.2014) (finding no error in the grant of a flight instruction); accord Shumpert v. State, 935 So.2d 962, 970 (Miss.2006); accord Walker v. State, 913 So.2d 198, 234 (Miss.2005); Randolph v. State, 852 So.2d 547, 566 (Miss.2002) (“The trial court did not err in admitting the flight evidence and instructions.... ”); Wall v. State, 718 So.2d 1107, 1112 (Miss.1998) (finding that because the defendant provided no excuse and that his flight was probative of guilty knowledge “the flight instruction was appropriate”); accord Warren v. State, 709 So.2d 415,

2015See Harrell v. State, 134 So.3d 266, 276 (Miss.2014) (finding no error in the grant of a flight instruction); accord Shumpert v. State, 935 So.2d 962, 970 (Miss.2006); accord Walker v. State, 913 So.2d 198, 234 (Miss.2005); Randolph v. State, 852 So.2d 547, 566 (Miss.2002) (“The trial court did not err in admitting the flight evidence and instructions.... ”); Wall v. State, 718 So.2d 1107, 1112 (Miss.1998) (finding that because the defendant provided no excuse and that his flight was probative of guilty knowledge “the flight instruction was appropriate”); accord Warren v. State, 709 So.2d 415,

2015See Evans, 579 So.2d at 1248-49 (finding the defendant’s stated flight excuse, of “fear” not a legal explanation in light of the facts and that the trial judge therefore properly granted a flight instruction).

2015See Harrell v. State, 134 So. 3d 266, 276 (Miss. 2014) (finding no error in the grant of a flight instruction); accord Shumpert v. State, 935 So. 2d 962, 970 (Miss. 2006); accord Walker v. State, 913 So. 2d 198, 234 (Miss. 2005); Randolph v. State, 852 So. 2d 547, 566 (Miss. 2002) (“The trial court did not err in admitting the flight evidence and instructions . . . .”); Wall v. State, 718 So. 2d 1107, 1112 (Miss. 1998) (finding that because the defendant provided no excuse and that his flight was probative of guilty knowledge “the flight instruction was appropriate”); accord Warren, 709 So. 2d

2015See Harrell v. State, 134 So.3d 266, 276 (Miss.2014) (finding no error in the grant of a flight instruction); accord Shumpert v. State, 935 So.2d 962, 970 (Miss.2006); accord Walker v. State, 913 So.2d 198, 234 (Miss.2005); Randolph v. State, 852 So.2d 547, 566 (Miss.2002) (“The trial court did not err in admitting the flight evidence and instructions.... ”); Wall v. State, 718 So.2d 1107, 1112 (Miss.1998) (finding that because the defendant provided no excuse and that his flight was probative of guilty knowledge “the flight instruction was appropriate”); accord Warren v. State, 709 So.2d 415,

2026Since Alberty and Allen, this Court has held that admitting a flight instruction “is permitted only when (1) the flight is unexplained, and (2) the circumstance of flight has considerable probative value of guilt or guilty knowledge.” Harrell v. State, 134 So. 3d 266, 275 (Miss. 2014) (first citing States v. State, 88 So. 3d 749, 757 (Miss. 2012); and then citing Austin v. State, 784 So. 2d 186 , 194 23 (Miss. 2001)).13 ¶54.

2015See Harrell v. State, 134 So.3d 266, 276 (Miss.2014) (finding no error in the grant of a flight instruction); accord Shumpert v. State, 935 So.2d 962, 970 (Miss.2006); accord Walker v. State, 913 So.2d 198, 234 (Miss.2005); Randolph v. State, 852 So.2d 547, 566 (Miss.2002) (“The trial court did not err in admitting the flight evidence and instructions.... ”); Wall v. State, 718 So.2d 1107, 1112 (Miss.1998) (finding that because the defendant provided no excuse and that his flight was probative of guilty knowledge “the flight instruction was appropriate”); accord Warren v. State, 709 So.2d 415,

2016“We will overturn a trial court’s giving of a jury instruction only where the trial court abused its discretion.” Drummer v. State, 167 So. 3d 1180, 1186 (¶ 19) (Miss. 2015) (citing Higgins v. State, 725 So. 2d 220, 223 (¶ 15) (Miss. 1998)). “[J]ury instructions must be read ‘as a whole with no one instruction taken out of context.’” Id. 9 (quoting Jackson v. State, 645 So. 2d 921, 924 (Miss. 1994)).

2016“We will overturn a trial court’s giving of a jury instruction only where the trial court abused its discretion.” Drummer v. State, 167 So. 3d 1180, 1186 (¶ 19) (Miss. 2015) (citing Higgins v. State, 725 So. 2d 220, 223 (¶ 15) (Miss. 1998)). “[J]ury instructions must be read ‘as a whole with no one instruction taken out of context.’” Id. 9 (quoting Jackson v. State, 645 So. 2d 921, 924 (Miss. 1994)).

2015See Harrell v. State, 134 So.3d 266, 276 (Miss.2014) (finding no error in the grant of a flight instruction); accord Shumpert v. State, 935 So.2d 962, 970 (Miss.2006); accord Walker v. State, 913 So.2d 198, 234 (Miss.2005); Randolph v. State, 852 So.2d 547, 566 (Miss.2002) (“The trial court did not err in admitting the flight evidence and instructions.... ”); Wall v. State, 718 So.2d 1107, 1112 (Miss.1998) (finding that because the defendant provided no excuse and that his flight was probative of guilty knowledge “the flight instruction was appropriate”); accord Warren v. State, 709 So.2d 415,

2015See Harrell v. State, 134 So.3d 266, 276 (Miss.2014) (finding no error in the grant of a flight instruction); accord Shumpert v. State, 935 So.2d 962, 970 (Miss.2006); accord Walker v. State, 913 So.2d 198, 234 (Miss.2005); Randolph v. State, 852 So.2d 547, 566 (Miss.2002) (“The trial court did not err in admitting the flight evidence and instructions.... ”); Wall v. State, 718 So.2d 1107, 1112 (Miss.1998) (finding that because the defendant provided no excuse and that his flight was probative of guilty knowledge “the flight instruction was appropriate”); accord Warren v. State, 709 So.2d 415,

2015See Fuselier v. State, 468 So. 2d 45 (Miss. 1985) (Fuselier I ) (“Here, because the court was aware of an explanation for Fuselier’s flight, which was at that time inadmissible, we are of the opinion 29 that the flight instruction should not have been granted.”); accord Liggins v. State, 726 So. 2d 180 (Miss. 1998) (“Evidence of flight is inadmissible where, as in this case, there is an independent reason for flight known by the court which cannot be explained to the jury because of its prejudicial effect upon the defendant.”); Banks v. State, 631 So. 2d 748, 751 (Miss. 1994) (“The present cas

2015To follow that up with a flight instruction—calling special attention to a particular inference that one side would like to jury to make—is, in my 18 See Ervin v. State, 136 So. 3d 1053, 1060 (Miss. 2014); Randolph v. State, 852 So. 2d 547 (Miss. 2002); Banks v. State, 631 So. 2d 748 (Miss. 1994); Fuselier v. State, 468 So. 2d 45 (Miss. 1985); Pannell v. State, 455 So. 2d 785, 789 (Miss. 1984); Craft v. State, 271 So. 2d 735 (Miss. 1973); Quarles v. State, 199 So. 2d 58 (Miss. 1967); Eubanks v. State, 227 Miss. 162 , 85 So. 2d 805 (1956). 24 view, unfair.