flight instruction in Delaware

2025This Court has held that a flight instruction is proper “where there is evidence of flight supporting an inference that defendant fled out of consciousness of guilt.”40 Here, the flight instruction was relevant only to the CCDW charge, not 38 Robertson, 704 A.2d at 268 . 39 Id. 40 Robertson v. State, 41 A.3d 406, 409 (Del. 2012); Thomas v. State, 467 A.2d 954, 958 (Del. 1983) (“A flight instruction is proper where there is evidence of flight or concealment and the evidence reasonably supports an inference that defendant fled because ‘of consciousness of guilt and a desire to avoid an accusatio

2025The flight instruction stated in part that evidence of flight “is admissible as a circumstance tending to show consciousness of guilt.” Id. at A92 (Jury Instructions).

2025This Court has held that a flight instruction is proper “where there is evidence of flight supporting an inference that defendant fled out of consciousness of guilt.”40 Here, the flight instruction was relevant only to the CCDW charge, not 38 Robertson, 704 A.2d at 268 . 39 Id. 40 Robertson v. State, 41 A.3d 406, 409 (Del. 2012); Thomas v. State, 467 A.2d 954, 958 (Del. 1983) (“A flight instruction is proper where there is evidence of flight or concealment and the evidence reasonably supports an inference that defendant fled because ‘of consciousness of guilt and a desire to avoid an accusatio

2024Cosden does not dispute that this evidence, standing alone, constituted a 6 Tice v. State, 382 A.2d 231, 233 (Del. 1977). 7 Robertson, 41 A.3d at 409 ; Tice, 382 A.2d at 233 . 8 Thomas v. State, 467 A.2d 954, 958 (Del. 1983) (citing Tice, 382 A.2d at 233 ). 7 sufficient factual basis to support a flight instruction.

2025This Court has held that a flight instruction is proper “where there is evidence of flight supporting an inference that defendant fled out of consciousness of guilt.”40 Here, the flight instruction was relevant only to the CCDW charge, not 38 Robertson, 704 A.2d at 268 . 39 Id. 40 Robertson v. State, 41 A.3d 406, 409 (Del. 2012); Thomas v. State, 467 A.2d 954, 958 (Del. 1983) (“A flight instruction is proper where there is evidence of flight or concealment and the evidence reasonably supports an inference that defendant fled because ‘of consciousness of guilt and a desire to avoid an accusatio

2024Cosden does not dispute that this evidence, standing alone, constituted a 6 Tice v. State, 382 A.2d 231, 233 (Del. 1977). 7 Robertson, 41 A.3d at 409 ; Tice, 382 A.2d at 233 . 8 Thomas v. State, 467 A.2d 954, 958 (Del. 1983) (citing Tice, 382 A.2d at 233 ). 7 sufficient factual basis to support a flight instruction.

2024The trial court did not limit the jury’s inference exclusively to guilt; rather, by stating the questions of fact at issue and declaring the applicable law, the trial court properly reserved issues of fact for the jury. 15 App. to Opening Br. at A388 (Trial Tr.). 16 Opening Br. at 13. 17 Claudio, 585 A.2d at 1282 . 11 (24) Finally, Cosden argues that the court’s flight instruction improperly generalized consciousness of guilt as “all or nothing” because it “suggested to the jury that Cosden fled because of guilt of ‘the offenses charged in the indictment.’”18 In Cosden’s view, had the jury bee

2024He additionally contends for the first time that the instruction’s wording violated the Delaware Constitution. 5 ANALYSIS (12) “This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s decision to issue a jury instruction over the defendant’s objection.”1 This Court also considers whether the instructions, examined as a whole, correctly stated the law.2 When, however, objections to jury instructions are not fairly preserved in the trial court, we will “review[] the content of jury instructions for plain error.”3 “Under the plain error standard of review, the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicia

2024He additionally contends for the first time that the instruction’s wording violated the Delaware Constitution. 5 ANALYSIS (12) “This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s decision to issue a jury instruction over the defendant’s objection.”1 This Court also considers whether the instructions, examined as a whole, correctly stated the law.2 When, however, objections to jury instructions are not fairly preserved in the trial court, we will “review[] the content of jury instructions for plain error.”3 “Under the plain error standard of review, the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicia

2024He additionally contends for the first time that the instruction’s wording violated the Delaware Constitution. 5 ANALYSIS (12) “This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s decision to issue a jury instruction over the defendant’s objection.”1 This Court also considers whether the instructions, examined as a whole, correctly stated the law.2 When, however, objections to jury instructions are not fairly preserved in the trial court, we will “review[] the content of jury instructions for plain error.”3 “Under the plain error standard of review, the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicia

2024He additionally contends for the first time that the instruction’s wording violated the Delaware Constitution. 5 ANALYSIS (12) “This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s decision to issue a jury instruction over the defendant’s objection.”1 This Court also considers whether the instructions, examined as a whole, correctly stated the law.2 When, however, objections to jury instructions are not fairly preserved in the trial court, we will “review[] the content of jury instructions for plain error.”3 “Under the plain error standard of review, the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicia

2019The flight instruction was a 2 Robertson v State, 41 A.3d 406, 408 (Del. 2012). 3 Lloyd v. State, 152 A.3d 1266, 1271 (Del. 2016). 4 Thomas v. State, 467 A.2d 954, 958 (Del.1983) (quoting Tice v. State, 382 A.2d 231, 233 (Del. 1977)). 5 correct statement of law and was not confusing or speculative.

2019The flight instruction was a 2 Robertson v State, 41 A.3d 406, 408 (Del. 2012). 3 Lloyd v. State, 152 A.3d 1266, 1271 (Del. 2016). 4 Thomas v. State, 467 A.2d 954, 958 (Del.1983) (quoting Tice v. State, 382 A.2d 231, 233 (Del. 1977)). 5 correct statement of law and was not confusing or speculative.

2008Staats v. State, 902 A.2d 1125, 1126 (Del. 2006). 2 .