flight instruction in Tennessee

2026Sufficient evidence supporting a flight instruction exists where there is evidence of “both a leaving the scene of the difficulty and a subsequent hiding out, evasion, or concealment in the community, or a leaving of the community for parts unknown.” State v. Burns, 979 S.W.2d 276, 289-90 (Tenn. 1998) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2024The evidence is sufficient to support a flight instruction where there is proof of “‘both a leaving the scene of the difficulty and a subsequent hiding out, evasion, or concealment in the community, or a leaving of the community for parts - 17 - unknown.’” State v. Burns, 979 S.W.2d 276, 289-90 (Tenn. 1998) (emphasis omitted) (quoting State v. Payton, 782 S.W.2d 490, 498 (Tenn. Crim.

2025"A specific intent prohibited when there are multiple motives for flight," and "[a] defendant's for fleeing a scene is a jury question." Berry, 141 S.W.3d at 589 . law, The flight instruction provided by the trial court was a correct statement of the spotted by Mr. see id. at 588 , and the evidence supported the trial court's giving it.

2025"A specific intent prohibited when there are multiple motives for flight," and "[a] defendant's for fleeing a scene is a jury question." Berry, 141 S.W.3d at 589 . law, The flight instruction provided by the trial court was a correct statement of the spotted by Mr. see id. at 588 , and the evidence supported the trial court's giving it.

2024The evidence is sufficient to support a flight instruction where there is proof of “‘both a leaving the scene of the difficulty and a subsequent hiding out, evasion, or concealment in the community, or a leaving of the community for parts - 17 - unknown.’” State v. Burns, 979 S.W.2d 276, 289-90 (Tenn. 1998) (emphasis omitted) (quoting State v. Payton, 782 S.W.2d 490, 498 (Tenn. Crim.

2018App. Nov. 22, 1999), no perm app fled Even a brief evasion of authorities can support the giving of the flight instruction State v. Payton, 782 S.W.2d 490, 498 (Tenn. Crim.

2021See State v. Smith, 893 S.W.2d 908, 918 (Tenn. 1994) (a flight instruction was warranted when police investigating a homicide discovered a car stuck in the mud with the engine still warm and the victim’s stolen belongings around the car and it could be inferred that the offender had recently fled, even though the identity of the defendant, who was tied to the crime by physical evidence, was not discovered until a year later, and concluding that even if erroneous, the instruction was harmless); State v. Shawn Simmons, No. M2009-01362-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 3719167 , at *5 (Tenn. Crim.

2020See, e.g., State v. Smith, 893 S.W.2d 908, 918 (Tenn. 1994) (finding circumstantial evidence of an immediate flight because the facts led to a reasonable inference that the defendant had seen the flashing lights of a passing police car, which was responding to another call nearby, and concealed himself and left the scene); Hill- Williams, 2017 WL 1907735 , at *12-13 (concluding that, although the defendant called 9-1-1 after he shot the victim, there was sufficient evidence to support a flight instruction because the defendant also left the scene of the shooting and went home, but did not stay

2025There is sufficient evidence to justify a flight instruction when the State has established “both a leaving the scene of the difficulty and a subsequent hiding out, evasion, or concealment in the community, or a leaving of the community for parts unknown.” State v. Whittenmeir, 725 S.W.2d 686, 688 (Tenn. Crim.

2020There is sufficient evidence to justify a flight instruction when the State has established “both a leaving the scene of the difficulty and a subsequent hiding out, evasion, or concealment in the community, or a leaving of the community for parts unknown.” State v. Whittenmeir, 725 S.W.2d 686, 688 (Tenn. Crim.

2002See, e.g., Payton, 782 S.W.2d at 498 (approving the flight instruction for the defendant’s flight when encountered by the police at his brother’s duplex or a nearby yard later on the day of the offenses, which occurred at entry of the adjoining duplex); Rogers, 2 Tenn. Crim.

2002App. at 501-02 , 455 S.W.2d at 186-87 (affirming the flight instruction for the defendant’s traveling out of state on the day after he raped the victim in his home and again in her house, which was on the same street).

2026See State v. Kendricks, 947 S.W.2d 875, 885-86 (Tenn. Crim.

2021See State v. Kendricks, 947 S.W.2d 875, 885-86 (Tenn. Crim.

2024“Evidence of flight to avoid arrest may be rebutted by a credible explanation of some motive other than guilt, but the conclusion to be drawn from such evidence is for the jury upon proper instructions from the trial court.” Hall v. State, 584 S.W.2d 819, 821 (Tenn. Crim.

1985Hall v. State, 584 S.W.2d 819, 821 (Tenn.Crim.App.1979).

2021However, “[a]n erroneous or inaccurate jury charge, as opposed to 4 Although this flight instruction was not included in the trial transcript, it was included in the jury charge in the technical record. - 30 - an incomplete jury charge, may be raised for the first time in a motion for a new trial and is not waived by the failure to make a contemporaneous objection.” State v. Faulkner, 154 S.W.3d 48, 58 (Tenn. 2005).

2013“An instruction should be considered prejudicially erroneous only if the jury charge, when read as a whole, fails to fairly submit the legal issues or misleads the jury as to the applicable law.” State v. Faulkner, 154 S.W.3d 48, 58 (Tenn. 2005) (citing State v. Vann, 976 S.W.2d 93, 101 (Tenn. 1998)). -13- The post-conviction court found that trial counsel was not deficient for failing to object to a flight instruction because the issue of flight was fairly raised by the evidence.

2026In Jones v. State, this court stated: It is universally recognized that testimony as to flight, attempted flight, or concealment after the commission of an offense or after one is accused of a crime is relevant evidence which may be shown as a criminating circumstance, particularly where such conduct is apparently inconsistent with the idea of innocence. 580 S.W.2d 329, 332 (Tenn. Crim.

2026Townsend, 688 S.W.2d at 844 (holding that the flight instruction was warranted where the defendant escaped from the Lake County Jail by holding a razor to another inmate’s throat and fleeing once the cell door opened); State v. Johnson, No. 02C-01-9504-CC-00097, 1997 WL 80970 , at *7 (Tenn. Crim.

2026In State v. Smith, our supreme court held that, when a defendant was charged with evading arrest and other offenses, a trial court’s failure to limit the flight instruction to the charged offenses other than evading arrest was harmless when the flight instruction included that “flight alone does not allow you to find that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged” and the State’s evidence related to evading arrest was “overwhelming.” 492 S.W.3d 224, 248-48 (Tenn. 2016).

2026In State v. Smith, our supreme court held that, when a defendant was charged with evading arrest and other offenses, a trial court’s failure to limit the flight instruction to the charged offenses other than evading arrest was harmless when the flight instruction included that “flight alone does not allow you to find that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged” and the State’s evidence related to evading arrest was “overwhelming.” 492 S.W.3d 224, 248-48 (Tenn. 2016).

2024App. 1989)). “‘The law makes no nice or refined distinction as to the manner or method of a flight; it may be open, or it may be a hurried or concealed departure, or it may be concealment within the jurisdiction.’” Irick v. State, 973 S.W.2d 643, 654 (Tenn. Crim.

2024See State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557, 560-61 (Tenn. 1993) (holding that an appellate court is precluded from considering issues for which the appellant has failed to ensure that the record “conveys a fair, accurate, and complete account of what transpired with respect to the issues forming the basis of the appeal”).

2023“It is well-settled that a defendant has a constitutional right to a complete and correct charge of the law, so that each issue of fact raised by the evidence will be submitted to the jury on proper instructions.” State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370, 390 (Tenn. 2011).

2019A defendant in a criminal case “has a right to a correct and complete charge of the law, so that each issue of fact raised by the evidence will be submitted to the jury on proper instructions.” State v. Garrison, 40 S.W.3d 426, 432 (Tenn. 2000); see State v. Leath, 461 S.W.3d 73, 105 (Tenn. Crim.

2019A defendant in a criminal case “has a right to a correct and complete charge of the law, so that each issue of fact raised by the evidence will be submitted to the jury on proper instructions.” State v. Garrison, 40 S.W.3d 426, 432 (Tenn. 2000); see State v. Leath, 461 S.W.3d 73, 105 (Tenn. Crim.

2017Flight The Defendant also asserts error in the flight instruction, although he “concede[s] that under existing Tennessee law, flight was properly charged.” The Defendant argues that other jurisdictions have cast doubt on the probative value of flight on the question of guilt, and he cites to Ramsey v. State for the proposition that if “flight be construed as an act of guilt,” then “voluntary return must be treated as an act of innocence.” 571 S.W.2d 822, 827 (Tenn. 1978) (Henry, C.J., dissenting).

2013“An instruction should be considered prejudicially erroneous only if the jury charge, when read as a whole, fails to fairly submit the legal issues or misleads the jury as to the applicable law.” State v. Faulkner, 154 S.W.3d 48, 58 (Tenn. 2005) (citing State v. Vann, 976 S.W.2d 93, 101 (Tenn. 1998)). -13- The post-conviction court found that trial counsel was not deficient for failing to object to a flight instruction because the issue of flight was fairly raised by the evidence.

2013See State v. Nesbit, 978 S.W.2d 872, 900 (Tenn. 1998) (appendix).

2012See State v. Stafford, 670 S.W.2d 243, 246 (Tenn. Crim.

2010He asserts that “nothing in the record . . . indicates that [he] was attempting to evade the officer or flee.” Defendants have a “constitutional right to a correct and complete charge of the law.” State v. Teel, 793 S.W.2d 236, 249 (Tenn. 1990).

2008The single citation to State v. Shepherd, 862 S.W.2d 557, 567 (Tenn. Crim.