8 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Scott v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2017Cf. Graham v. United States, 12 A.3d 1159, 1167 (D.C. 2011) (“A flight instruction is improper unless the evidence reasonably supports the inference that there was flight or concealment and that the defendant fled because of consciousness of guilt and actual guilt of the crime charged.” (quoting Scott v. United States, 412 A.2d 364, 371 (D.C. 1980))). 2011“A flight instruction is improper unless the evidence reasonably supports the inference that there was flight or concealment and that the defendant fled because of consciousness of guilt and actual guilt of the crime charged.” Scott v. United States, 412 A.2d 364, 371 (D.C.1980) (citations omitted). | 4 | 4 |
Graham v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2017Cf. Graham v. United States, 12 A.3d 1159, 1167 (D.C. 2011) (“A flight instruction is improper unless the evidence reasonably supports the inference that there was flight or concealment and that the defendant fled because of consciousness of guilt and actual guilt of the crime charged.” (quoting Scott v. United States, 412 A.2d 364, 371 (D.C. 1980))). 2017Cf. Graham v. United States, 12 A.3d 1159, 1167 (D.C. 2011) (“A flight instruction is improper unless the evidence reasonably supports the inference that there was flight or concealment and that the defendant fled because of consciousness of guilt and actual guilt of the crime charged.” (quoting Scott v. United States, 412 A.2d 364, 371 (D.C. 1980))). | 1 | 1 |
Vernon Headspeth v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2017See, e.g., Headspeth, 86 A.3d at 561-62 (discussing defendant’s attempt to evade arrest by police), and we are unaware of any decision of this court indicating that the act of leaving the scene of a crime alone supports a flight instruction. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2014Further, when giving a flight instruction, the trial court “must fully apprise the jury that flight may be prompted by a variety of motives and thus of the caution which a jury should use before making the inference of guilt from the fact of flight.” Smith v. United States, 777 A.2d 801, 807-08 (D.C.2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). *565 Where an objection to a jury instruction was preserved at trial, we review the trial court’s decision to give the instruction for abuse of discretion. 2014Further, when giving a flight instruction, the trial court “must fully apprise the jury that flight may be prompted by a variety of motives and thus of the caution which a jury should use before making the inference of guilt from the fact of flight.” Smith v. United States, 777 A.2d 801, 807-08 (D.C.2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). *565 Where an objection to a jury instruction was preserved at trial, we review the trial court’s decision to give the instruction for abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
Morten v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2014Cf. Morten v. United States, 856 A.2d 595, 602 (D.C.2004) (“A prosecutor’s stress upon the centrality of particular evidence in closing argument tells a good deal about whether the admission of the evidence was meant to be, and was, prejudicial.”) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Wheeler v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2014Wheeler v. United States, 930 A.2d 232, 238 (D.C.2007). | 1 | 1 |
Lloyd v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2011Lloyd v. United States, 806 A.2d 1243, 1252 (D.C.2002) (finding that evidence that the defendant changed clothes and returned to the scene was sufficient to support a flight instruction). | 1 | 1 |
Woody v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2010Woody v. United States, 369 A.2d 592, 594 (D.C.1977). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Larry Allen Myersgreen1 sentence1980See United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1977); Austin v. United States, 134 U.S. App.D.C. 259, 262 n. 3, 414 F.2d 1155 , 1158 n. 3 (1969); see generally Note, Buie 403 and the Admissibility of Evidence of Flight in Criminal Trials, 65 Va.L.Rev. 597, 603-08 & n. 65 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
King v. United States
green
1 sentence2014But, just as with respect to the decision whether to admit evidence of flight, the trial court has an “obligation to determine in the first instance[,]” before giving a flight instruction, whether “the circumstances reasonably support an inference that [the defendant] fled because of consciousness of guilt of ... the charged crime.” King, 75 A.3d at 119 n. 9 (brackets omitted). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Logan v. United States
green
1 sentence1998Id. (”[B]ecause of the danger of prejudice inherent in permitting the jury to make such an inference, there must be some 'meaningful evidence’ of actual flight before the instruction can be given.") (Emphasis added) (citation omitted). 34 .The trial judge’s comments relating to his reasons for not giving the flight instruction suggest that he may well have granted such a motion. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Luther L. Austin v. United States
green
1 sentence1980See United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1977); Austin v. United States, 134 U.S. App.D.C. 259, 262 n. 3, 414 F.2d 1155 , 1158 n. 3 (1969); see generally Note, Buie 403 and the Admissibility of Evidence of Flight in Criminal Trials, 65 Va.L.Rev. 597, 603-08 & n. 65 (1979). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.