Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
74 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2026 17 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2015State v. Taylor, 78 Ohio St.3d 15, 27 (1997) (declining to find plain error in a flight instruction where the defendant testified and the instructions included consideration of the defendant's explanations for his flight); Bass at ¶ 2, 25-32 (overruling an argument that the flight instruction failed to permit the jury to consider other inferences besides guilty conscience where the defendant presented no other reasons for having led the "police on a seven or eight minute car chase"); State v. Nichols, 9th Dist. 2005State v. Goodbread, Butler App. No. CA-2003-02-038, 2004-Ohio-419 , 2004 WL 192800 ; State v. Taylor (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 15, 27 , 676 N.E.2d 82 . {¶ 42} In the instant action, there was sufficient evidence presented to support the trial court’s decision to give a flight instruction. | 4 | 10 |
United States v. Thomas Jerome Dillongreen2 sentences2020Simply because Cultrona was not charged with escape does not make Hand any less applicable. “[F]light may be proven where it occurs after any event which would tend to spark a sharp impulse of fear of prosecution or conviction in a guilty mind.” State v. Jeffries, 182 Ohio App.3d 459, 477 , 913 N.E.2d 493 , (11th Dist. 2009) quoting United States v. Dillon, 870 F.2d, 1125, 1128 (C.A.6, 1989). {¶ 37} Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the state's flight instruction. 2007See United States v. Dillon (C.A.6, 1989), 870 F.2d 1125 . {¶ 42} "A decision as to whether to issue a flight instruction rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Vasquezgreen2 sentences2026Vasquez, 2024-Ohio-860, at ¶ 82 (6th Dist.). 2026State v. Vasquez, 2024-Ohio-860, ¶ 72 (6th Dist.). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2004See State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151 , 157 , 404 N.E.2d 144 . {¶ 21} Further, the trial court instructed the jury that while it could consider Brundage's flight as evidence of consciousness of guilt, it was not required to do so. 2004See State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151 , 157 , 404 N.E.2d 144 . {¶ 21} Further, the trial court instructed the jury that while it could consider Brundage's flight as evidence of consciousness of guilt, it was not required to do so. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Simsgreen2 sentences2020State v. Sims, 13 Ohio App.3d 287, 289 , 469 N.E.2d 554 (1st Dist.1984). 2007See, also, State v. Sims (1984), 13 Ohio App. 3d 287 , 289 . {¶ 40} Mr. Meeks contends that a flight instruction should not have been given because he did not "indefinitely wait at the scene of a crime to be caught." Rather, he argues that his flight from the scene is not the same as leaving the state or actively avoiding contact with the police and thus, a flight instruction was not warranted in this case. *Page 12 {¶ 41} From the facts presented at trial, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a flight instruction given the circumstances of this case. | 1 | 13 |
State v. Fieldsgreen2 sentences2024Jury Instructions on Flight In his fifth assignment of error, Malone argues that the flight instruction the court gave to the jury impermissibly “burden[s] the defendant with providing an explanation for his conduct and thus violate[s] the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to a fair trial.” To support this argument, Malone cites to State v. Fields, 35 Ohio App.2d 140, 144-145 (1st Dist. 1973), in which the court held that the following flight jury instruction “unlawfully compromises the undoubted right of a citizen under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments [to] the United Stat 2024Unlike the flight instruction in State v. Fields, 35 Ohio App.2d 140 . . . (1st Dist. 1973) this instruction did not require Willis to ‘satisfactorily explain’ his actions.” Willis at ¶ 45 . | 1 | 4 |
State v. Eatongreen2 sentences2022Mahoning No. 13 MA 12, 2014- Ohio-2936, ¶ 139 (fleeing the scene instead of calling for ambulance), citing State v. Eaton, 19 Ohio St.2d 145, 160 , 249 N.E.2d 897 (1969) (“Flight from justice, and its analogous conduct, have always been indicative of consciousness of guilt”), overruled in part on other grounds, Eaton v. Ohio, 408 U.S. 935 , 92 S.Ct. 2857 , 33 L.Ed.2d 750 (1972) (vacating death penalty). {¶71} Appellant argues a flight instruction was not warranted because he merely left the scene, claiming he took no affirmative step to avoid the police. 2022Mahoning No. 13 MA 12, 2014- Ohio-2936, ¶ 139 (fleeing the scene instead of calling for ambulance), citing State v. Eaton, 19 Ohio St.2d 145, 160 , 249 N.E.2d 897 (1969) (“Flight from justice, and its analogous conduct, have always been indicative of consciousness of guilt”), overruled in part on other grounds, Eaton v. Ohio, 408 U.S. 935 , 92 S.Ct. 2857 , 33 L.Ed.2d 750 (1972) (vacating death penalty). {¶71} Appellant argues a flight instruction was not warranted because he merely left the scene, claiming he took no affirmative step to avoid the police. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Willisgreen2 sentences2024In State v. Willis, 2014-Ohio-114, ¶ 46 (8th Dist.), this court found no error in the trial court’s flight instruction provided to the jury, which was identical to the flight instruction given to the jury in the instant case. “[C]ontrary to Willis’s assertion, the wording of the instruction does not compromise Willis’s constitutional right to remain silent. 2016Cuyahoga No. 99735, 2014-Ohio-114, ¶ 44 . | 1 | 2 |
Blakemore v. Blakemoregreen2 sentences2007Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 . {¶ 43} "Flight from justice "means some escape or affirmative attempt to avoid apprehension." State v. Wesley , Cuyahoga App. No. 80684, 2002 Ohio 4429 , citing United States v. Felix-Gutierrez (C.A.9, 1991), 940 F.2d 1200 , 1207." Id at paragraphs 42-44. {¶ 44} While appellant contends that the evidence adduced at trial did not substantiate a flight instruction, we disagree. 2007Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 . {¶ 43} "Flight from justice "means some escape or affirmative attempt to avoid apprehension." State v. Wesley , Cuyahoga App. No. 80684, 2002 Ohio 4429 , citing United States v. Felix-Gutierrez (C.A.9, 1991), 940 F.2d 1200 , 1207." Id at paragraphs 42-44. {¶ 44} While appellant contends that the evidence adduced at trial did not substantiate a flight instruction, we disagree. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Barnesgreen2 sentences2014Courts are to notice plain error under Crim.R. 52(B), “‘with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” (Citation omitted.) Id. {¶43} The trial court provided the following flight instruction to the jury: Consciousness of guilty, flight of the defendant. 2014Crim.R. 52(B); In re: J.G., 2013-Ohio-583 , 986 N.E.2d 1122 , ¶ 10 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 2002-Ohio-68 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 . {¶106} In this case, the trial court gave the following instruction to the jury on flight: Consciousness of guilt. | 1 | 2 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2025See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-694 . 2. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Morrissettegreen1 sentence2025State v. Morrissette, 2018-Ohio-3917, ¶ 51 (1st Dist.). {¶56} The trial court’s jury instruction entitled “consciousness of guilt” stated that “[t]estimony has been admitted that the defendant fled the scene,” and that “leaving the scene alone does not raise a presumption of guilt.” The instruction further provided that if the jury found that “the facts do not support that the defendant left the scene or if you find that some other motive prompted the defendant’s conduct, or if you are unable to decide what the defendant’s motive was, then you should not consider this evidence for any purpose. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Shine-Johnsongreen1 sentence2024No. 17AP-194, 2018-Ohio-3347, ¶ 48 (evidence that appellant left the scene on foot after the shooting before any law enforcement arrived on the scene could support an inference of flight as consciousness of guilt and, thus, was sufficient to warrant the flight instruction). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Aekinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Woodgreen | 1 | 1 |
State v. Oriansgreen2 sentences2024Id.; compare State v. Orians, 179 Ohio App.3d 701 , 2008-Ohio-6185 , 903 N.E.2d 656, ¶ 12-15 (3d Dist.) (trial court’s use of a consciousness-of-guilt instruction that was not neutral was prejudicial). {¶ 83} Moreover, we cannot say that the outcome of the trial would have been different if the trial court did not give the flight instruction. 2024Id.; compare State v. Orians, 179 Ohio App.3d 701 , 2008-Ohio-6185 , 903 N.E.2d 656, ¶ 12-15 (3d Dist.) (trial court’s use of a consciousness-of-guilt instruction that was not neutral was prejudicial). {¶ 83} Moreover, we cannot say that the outcome of the trial would have been different if the trial court did not give the flight instruction. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Sanchez-Sanchezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Unifund CCR Partners, Inc. v. Piasergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (10-19-2007)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Banks, Unpublished Decision (4-26-2005)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Paynegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Johnson
neutral
2 sentences2021Cuyahoga No. 99715, 2014-Ohio-2638, ¶ 110 , the court held that the defendant’s conduct of leaving the scene of the crime did not warrant a flight instruction because there was no evidence of deliberate flight in the sense of evading police. 2016Cuyahoga No. 99715, 2014-Ohio-2638, ¶ 110 , that the defendant’s conduct of leaving the scene of the crime did not warrant a flight instruction because there was no evidence of deliberate flight in the sense of evading police. | 6 | 2014–2021 |
State v. White
green
2 sentences2024A flight instruction that tells the jury (1) any consciousness-of-guilt finding is “entirely permissive,” (2) the instruction only applies if the jury finds that the defendant fled due to his consciousness of guilt, (3) the jury has discretion to give consciousness-of-guilt evidence no weight, and (4) fleeing does not create a presumption of guilt is “neutral in its effect” and “‘all but innocuous.’” State v. Aekins, 2023-Ohio-322 , 207 N.E.3d 934, ¶ 119 (10th Dist.); Walter at ¶ 101, quoting White, 2015-Ohio-3512 , 37 N.E.3d 1271 , at ¶ 51. 2024No. 26093, 2015-Ohio-3512 , the Second District found a flight instruction “all but innocuous.” Id. at ¶ 51. | 5 | 2019–2024 |
State v. Villa, Unpublished Decision (9-5-2006)
neutral
2 sentences2013Lorain No. 05CA008773, 2006-Ohio-4529, ¶ 31 , the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving a flight instruction where the evidence established that defendant departed the scene, was sought for questioning about the crime, and could not be located. 2012No. 05CA008773, 2006-Ohio-4529 , the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving a flight instruction where the evidence established that the defendant departed the scene, was sought for questioning about the crime, and could not be located. | 5 | 2011–2013 |
State v. Price
green
2 sentences2024State v. Price, 60 Ohio St.2d 136 , 398 N.E.2d 772 (1979), paragraph four of the syllabus. 2024State v. Price, 60 Ohio St.2d 136 , 398 N.E.2d 772 (1979), paragraph four of the syllabus. | 4 | 2006–2024 |
Irving v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences2022Mahoning No. 13 MA 12, 2014- Ohio-2936, ¶ 139 (fleeing the scene instead of calling for ambulance), citing State v. Eaton, 19 Ohio St.2d 145, 160 , 249 N.E.2d 897 (1969) (“Flight from justice, and its analogous conduct, have always been indicative of consciousness of guilt”), overruled in part on other grounds, Eaton v. Ohio, 408 U.S. 935 , 92 S.Ct. 2857 , 33 L.Ed.2d 750 (1972) (vacating death penalty). {¶71} Appellant argues a flight instruction was not warranted because he merely left the scene, claiming he took no affirmative step to avoid the police. 2022Mahoning No. 13 MA 12, 2014- Ohio-2936, ¶ 139 (fleeing the scene instead of calling for ambulance), citing State v. Eaton, 19 Ohio St.2d 145, 160 , 249 N.E.2d 897 (1969) (“Flight from justice, and its analogous conduct, have always been indicative of consciousness of guilt”), overruled in part on other grounds, Eaton v. Ohio, 408 U.S. 935 , 92 S.Ct. 2857 , 33 L.Ed.2d 750 (1972) (vacating death penalty). {¶71} Appellant argues a flight instruction was not warranted because he merely left the scene, claiming he took no affirmative step to avoid the police. | 4 | 2004–2022 |
State v. Gibson
green
2 sentences2016Cuyahoga No. 98725, 2013-Ohio-4372 , State v. Vanderhorst, 8th Dist. 2015Cuyahoga No. 98725, 2013-Ohio-4372 , State v. Vanderhorst, 8th Dist. | 4 | 2014–2016 |
State v. Jeffries
green
2 sentences2020Simply because Cultrona was not charged with escape does not make Hand any less applicable. “[F]light may be proven where it occurs after any event which would tend to spark a sharp impulse of fear of prosecution or conviction in a guilty mind.” State v. Jeffries, 182 Ohio App.3d 459, 477 , 913 N.E.2d 493 , (11th Dist. 2009) quoting United States v. Dillon, 870 F.2d, 1125, 1128 (C.A.6, 1989). {¶ 37} Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the state's flight instruction. 2020Simply because Cultrona was not charged with escape does not make Hand any less applicable. “[F]light may be proven where it occurs after any event which would tend to spark a sharp impulse of fear of prosecution or conviction in a guilty mind.” State v. Jeffries, 182 Ohio App.3d 459, 477 , 913 N.E.2d 493 , (11th Dist. 2009) quoting United States v. Dillon, 870 F.2d, 1125, 1128 (C.A.6, 1989). {¶ 37} Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the state's flight instruction. | 3 | 2015–2020 |
State v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2017Cuyahoga No. 95516, 2011-Ohio-3058, ¶ 30 , citing State v. Taylor, 78 Ohio St.3d 15, 27 , 1997-Ohio-243 , 676 N.E.2d 82 . 2004State v. Taylor, 78 Ohio St.3d 15 , 27 , 1997-Ohio-243 , 676 N.E.2d 82 ; State v. Eaton (1969), 19 Ohio St.2d 145 , 249 N.E.2d 897 , paragraph six of the syllabus, vacated as to death penalty (1972), 408 U.S. 935 , 92 S.Ct. 2857 ; State v. Wallace (Dec. 31, 1996), 1st Dist. | 3 | 2004–2017 |
State v. Santiago
green
2 sentences2017Cuyahoga No. 95516, 2011-Ohio-3058, ¶ 30 , citing State v. Taylor, 78 Ohio St.3d 15, 27 , 1997-Ohio-243 , 676 N.E.2d 82 . 2013No. 95516, 2011-Ohio-3058 , this court held that “the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving a flight instruction where the evidence established that the defendant departed the scene, was sought for questioning about the crime, and could not be located.” Id. at ¶ 34, citing State v. Villa, 9th Dist. | 3 | 2013–2017 |
State v. Keller
green
2 sentences2023Cuyahoga No. 106196, 2018-Ohio-4107 , the court found an abuse of discretion in giving a flight instruction when a defendant left the house after a rape occurred, emphasizing that a defendant must deliberately evade police to be in flight. 2022Cuyahoga No. 106196, 2018-Ohio-4107, ¶ 63 . | 2 | 2022–2023 |
State v. Comen
green
2 sentences2021Generally, a trial court has broad discretion regarding jury instructions, but is required to “fully and completely give the jury all instructions which are relevant and necessary for the jury to weigh the evidence and discharge its duty as the fact finder.” State v. Comen, 50 Ohio St.3d 206, 210 , 553 N.E.2d 640 (1990). {¶10} A flight instruction is considered within the context of the entire set of jury instructions. 2021Generally, a trial court has broad discretion regarding jury instructions, but is required to “fully and completely give the jury all instructions which are relevant and necessary for the jury to weigh the evidence and discharge its duty as the fact finder.” State v. Comen, 50 Ohio St.3d 206, 210 , 553 N.E.2d 640 (1990). {¶10} A flight instruction is considered within the context of the entire set of jury instructions. | 2 | 2021–2023 |
Feterle v. Huettner
green
2 sentences2020Lorain No. 11CA010012, 2012- Ohio-3524, ¶ 15, quoting Feterle v. Huettner, 28 Ohio St.2d 54 (1971), syllabus. {¶65} Mr. Johnson argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to warrant a flight instruction. 2019Lorain No. 11CA010012, 2012-Ohio-3524, ¶ 15 , quoting Feterle v. Huettner, 28 Ohio St.2d 54 , syllabus (1971). {¶52} Tyler argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to warrant a flight instruction. | 2 | 2019–2020 |
United States v. Jesus Felix-Gutierrez
green
2 sentences2018Cuyahoga App. No. 80684, 2002- Ohio-4429 at paragraph 19, citing United States v. Felix–Gutierrez (C.A.9, 1991), 940 F.2d 1200, 1207 . {¶53} We note that appellant did not object to this instruction at the time that it was given, but did object to a jury instruction on flight when, at the beginning of the trial, the State moved to admit a jury instruction on flight. {¶54} While appellant contends that the evidence adduced at trial did not substantiate a flight instruction, we disagree. 2007Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 . {¶ 43} "Flight from justice "means some escape or affirmative attempt to avoid apprehension." State v. Wesley , Cuyahoga App. No. 80684, 2002 Ohio 4429 , citing United States v. Felix-Gutierrez (C.A.9, 1991), 940 F.2d 1200 , 1207." Id at paragraphs 42-44. {¶ 44} While appellant contends that the evidence adduced at trial did not substantiate a flight instruction, we disagree. | 2 | 2007–2018 |
State v. Hand
green
2 sentences2016State v. Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d 378 , 2006-Ohio-18 , 840 N.E.2d 151 , ¶ 161. 2010While not having an actual transcript of the instruction before the Court, the panel ultimately concluded that, while giving any flight instruction under this fact scenario would be error, an instruction given on this issue would constitute harmless error in Tubbs based upon other testimony that was properly on the record and before the Court. {¶15} In State v. Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d 378 , 2006-Ohio-18 , 840 N.E.2d 151 , the Ohio Supreme Court adopted a broad interpretation of the flight rule announced in Eaton, supra, albeit in the context of a motion to sever escape charges. | 2 | 2010–2016 |
State v. Davilla, Unpublished Decision (8-25-2004)
neutral
2 sentences2015Lorain No. 03CA008413, 2004 Ohio 4448, at ¶12 , citing State v. Sims, 13 Ohio App.3d 287, 289 , 469 N.E.2d 554 (1984). 2009No. 03CA008413, 2004-Ohio-4448 , 2004 WL 1882651 , at ¶ 12, citing State v. Sims (1984), 13 Ohio App.3d 287, 289 , 13 OBR 351, 469 N.E.2d 554 . {¶ 80} “[I]t is also well established that the flight of an accused from justice is admissible as evidence of the consciousness of guilt. * * * ‘ “It is today [sic] universally conceded that the fact of an accused’s flight, escape from custody, resistance to arrest, concealment, assumption of a false name, and related conduct, are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and thus of guilt itself.” 2 Wigmore on Evidence (3 Ed.), 111, Section 27 | 2 | 2009–2015 |
State v. Ross
green
1 sentence2024No. 17AP-141, 2018-Ohio-3027, ¶ 31 , quoting State v. Jennings, 10th Dist. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Kessler Scott green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Ammons green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Italiano green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Wilson green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Sage green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Van Gundy green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Hill green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Henson neutral | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Williams neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Robinson green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Ramos green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Jackson green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Adams (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Jackson green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Issa green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Noling green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Issa green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Noling green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Front Leasing Co. v. Hecker, 89692 (3-20-2008) green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Lott green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| City of Columbus v. Maxey green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Barnes green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Long green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| In re J.G. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.