Appellant appeals both the flight instruction and the denial of the motion to suppress. We review the trial court's decision to give a flight instruction for correctness. We review the trial court's factual findings underlying the denial of a motion to suppress for clear error, while the conclusions of law are reviewed for correctness. See Utah Code Ann. 9 Appellant argues that the trial court erred in allowing a flight instruction because his flight occurred before the fatal crash.
Flight instructions are proper when supported by the evidence.
However, such flight, if proved, may be considered by you in light of all other proven facts in the case in determining guilt or innocence. Although consciousness of guilt may be inferred from flight, it does not necessarily reflect actual guilt of the crime charged, and there may be reasons for flight fully consistent with innocence. Therefore, whether or not evidence of flight shows a consciousness of guilt and the significance, if any, to be attached to any such evidence are matters exclusively within the province of the jury. 11 Appellant argues that the flight instruction bore no relationship to the crime charged because the jury could improperly infer a consciousness of guilt for the fatalities, which occurred after the flight. Because the trial court instructed the jury that driving while under the influence is a lesser included offense of the crime of automobile homicide, and advised the jury that it could convict appellant on the lesser offense, the flight instruction bore the necessary relationship to the evidence.