flight instruction in Illinois

1976In People v. Weisberg, 396 Ill. 412 , 71 N.E.2d 671 , cert. denied, 331 U.S. 826 , 91 L.Ed. 1842 , 67 S.Ct. 1318 , the Illinois Supreme Court held that where the defendant has killed a man allegedly in self-defense and then leaves the scene of the shooting, going to a hotel in which he lives and enroute disposes of a weapon, there is not sufficient evidence to justify the giving of a flight instruction.

1976In People v. Weisberg, 396 Ill. 412 , 71 N.E.2d 671 , cert. denied, 331 U.S. 826 , 91 L.Ed. 1842 , 67 S.Ct. 1318 , the Illinois Supreme Court held that where the defendant has killed a man allegedly in self-defense and then leaves the scene of the shooting, going to a hotel in which he lives and enroute disposes of a weapon, there is not sufficient evidence to justify the giving of a flight instruction.

1976In People v. Herbert, 361 Ill. 64 , 196 N.E. 821 , the Illinois Supreme Court commented on the giving of a similar flight instruction and found it to be reversible error because the evidence did not justify its being given.

1976In People v. Herbert, 361 Ill. 64 , 196 N.E. 821 , the Illinois Supreme Court commented on the giving of a similar flight instruction and found it to be reversible error because the evidence did not justify its being given.

1976In People v. Weisberg, 396 Ill. 412 , 71 N.E.2d 671 , cert. denied, 331 U.S. 826 , 91 L.Ed. 1842 , 67 S.Ct. 1318 , the Illinois Supreme Court held that where the defendant has killed a man allegedly in self-defense and then leaves the scene of the shooting, going to a hotel in which he lives and enroute disposes of a weapon, there is not sufficient evidence to justify the giving of a flight instruction.

1972(People v. Herbert (1935), 361 Ill. 64, 73-74 ; People v. Burris (1971), 49 Ill.2d 98, 107 .) In People v. Weisberg (1947), 396 Ill. 412, 427 , cert. den. 331 U.S. 826 , the Illinois Supreme Court held that where a defendant has killed a man, allegedly in self-defense, leaves the scene and proceeds home, there is not sufficient evidence to justify a flight instruction.

1973Complaint is made of a flight instruction given by the court over defendant's general objection: "The Court instructs the jury that if the jury believes from the evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, that a crime was committed, and if you also believe, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the defendant, immediately after the commission of the crime with which he stands charged, fled and remained away until taken into custody, such flight is a proper circumstance to be considered in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant." While we note that the Illinois Judicial Conference Committee

1972(People v. Herbert (1935), 361 Ill. 64, 73-74 ; People v. Burris (1971), 49 Ill.2d 98, 107 .) In People v. Weisberg (1947), 396 Ill. 412, 427 , cert. den. 331 U.S. 826 , the Illinois Supreme Court held that where a defendant has killed a man, allegedly in self-defense, leaves the scene and proceeds home, there is not sufficient evidence to justify a flight instruction.

1979From the evidence of flight, the jury may then infer consciousness of guilt and consider this circumstance in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant.” ( 39 Ill.

1976App. 2d 231 , 220 N.E.2d 261 , the court, relying on Weisberg, held that the giving of a flight instruction was error because there was no evidentiary basis for the instruction.

1976App.2d 231 , 220 N.E.2d 261 , the court, relying on Weisberg , held that the giving of a flight instruction was error because there was no evidentiary basis for the instruction.

1976App. 2d 70 , 208 N.E.2d 373 , the proposition was again recognized that even where the flight instruction should not have been given, where there is overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, the instruction is not reversible error.

1976App.2d 70 , 208 N.E.2d 373 , the proposition was again recognized that even where the flight instruction should not have been given, where there is overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, the instruction is not reversible error. • 3 In the instant case when all the testimony, including two unimpeached eyewitnesses, is viewed in a realistic manner the proof was clear cut and beyond question.

1976The following factors must be present in order to supply an evidentiary basis for a flight instruction based on the defendant’s departure from the scene of the crime: (1) The defendant must leave the scene of the crime; (2) The defendant must know or have reason to know that a crime has been committed and that he is or may be suspected of committing that crime, People v. Harris, 23 Ill. 2d 270 , 178 N.E.2d 291 ; People v. Herbert 361 Ill. 64 , 196 N.E.821; People v. Griffin, 23 Ill.

1976The following factors must be present in order to supply an evidentiary basis for a flight instruction based on the defendant's departure from the scene of the crime: (1) The defendant must leave the scene of the crime; (2) The defendant must know or have reason to know that a crime has been committed and that he is or may be suspected of committing that crime, People v. Harris, 23 Ill.2d 270 , 178 N.E.2d 291 ; People v. Herbert 361 Ill. 64 , 196 N.E. 821 ; People v. Griffin, 23 Ill.

1976In People v. Agnello, 22 Ill. 2d 352 , 176 N.E.2d 778 (1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 957 , 7 L.

1976In People v. Agnello, 22 Ill.2d 352 , 176 N.E.2d 778 (1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 957 , 7 L.Ed.2d 389 , 82 S.Ct. 400 , the court held that proof of defendant's guilt was clear and in such a case, the jury would hardly need the circumstance of flight to be convinced of his guilt.

1976App. 3d 303 , 282 N.E.2d 201 , the court held that the giving of a flight instruction was error, and the court reversed the conviction.

1976App.3d 303 , 282 N.E.2d 201 , the court held that the giving of a flight instruction was error, and the court reversed the conviction.

1976(See People v. Craven (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 419 , 299 N.E.2d 1 .) When all of these facts are considered many Illinois cases have held that in some instances the flight instruction is harmless error because it is unnecessary proof.

1976(See People v. Craven (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 419 , 299 N.E.2d 1 .) When all of these facts are considered many Illinois cases have held that in some instances the flight instruction is harmless error because it is unnecessary proof.

1976In People v. Agnello, 22 Ill. 2d 352 , 176 N.E.2d 778 (1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 957 , 7 L.

1976In People v. Agnello, 22 Ill.2d 352 , 176 N.E.2d 778 (1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 957 , 7 L.Ed.2d 389 , 82 S.Ct. 400 , the court held that proof of defendant's guilt was clear and in such a case, the jury would hardly need the circumstance of flight to be convinced of his guilt.

1976The following factors must be present in order to supply an evidentiary basis for a flight instruction based on the defendant’s departure from the scene of the crime: (1) The defendant must leave the scene of the crime; (2) The defendant must know or have reason to know that a crime has been committed and that he is or may be suspected of committing that crime, People v. Harris, 23 Ill. 2d 270 , 178 N.E.2d 291 ; People v. Herbert 361 Ill. 64 , 196 N.E.821; People v. Griffin, 23 Ill.

1976The following factors must be present in order to supply an evidentiary basis for a flight instruction based on the defendant’s departure from the scene of the crime: (1) The defendant must leave the scene of the crime; (2) The defendant must know or have reason to know that a crime has been committed and that he is or may be suspected of committing that crime, People v. Harris, 23 Ill. 2d 270 , 178 N.E.2d 291 ; People v. Herbert 361 Ill. 64 , 196 N.E.821; People v. Griffin, 23 Ill.

1976App. 2d 342 , 220 N.E.2d 7 , where the evidence showed that the defendant fled during a car chase but the giving of a flight instruction was held reversible error, since the record did not show that the defendant knew or should have known he was a suspect, and therefore no showing of consciousness of guilt was made with respect to defendant’s apparent act of flight.

1976App.2d 342 , 220 N.E.2d 7 , where the evidence showed that the defendant fled during a car chase but the giving of a flight instruction was held reversible error, since the record did not show that the defendant knew or should have known he was a suspect, and therefore no showing of consciousness of guilt was made with respect to defendant's apparent act of flight.

1976App. 3d 1022 , 279 N.E.2d 765 , the court, relying on Herbert, held that the giving of a flight instruction constituted reversible error since the evidence did not warrant such an instruction.

1976App.3d 1022 , 279 N.E.2d 765 , the court, relying on Herbert , held that the giving of a flight instruction constituted reversible error since the evidence did not warrant such an instruction.

1976Ed. 1842 , 67 S. Ct. 1318 , the Illinois Supreme Court held that where the defendant has killed a man allegedly in self-defense and then leaves the scene of the shooting, going to a hotel in which he lives and enroute disposes of a weapon, there is not sufficient evidence to justify the giving of a flight instruction.

1976In People v. Weisberg, 396 Ill. 412 , 71 N.E.2d 671 , cert. denied, 331 U.S. 826 , 91 L.Ed. 1842 , 67 S.Ct. 1318 , the Illinois Supreme Court held that where the defendant has killed a man allegedly in self-defense and then leaves the scene of the shooting, going to a hotel in which he lives and enroute disposes of a weapon, there is not sufficient evidence to justify the giving of a flight instruction.

1976In People v. Weisberg, 396 Ill. 412 , 71 N.E.2d 671 , cert. denied, 331 U.S. 826 , 91 L.

1976In People v. Weisberg, 396 Ill. 412 , 71 N.E.2d 671 , cert. denied, 331 U.S. 826 , 91 L.Ed. 1842 , 67 S.Ct. 1318 , the Illinois Supreme Court held that where the defendant has killed a man allegedly in self-defense and then leaves the scene of the shooting, going to a hotel in which he lives and enroute disposes of a weapon, there is not sufficient evidence to justify the giving of a flight instruction.

1966People v. Haensel, 293 Ill 33 [ 127 NE 181 ].” The erroneous giving of the flight instruction there was held not to be reversible error.