Opinion ID: 1277687
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Refusal to Modify Flight Instruction

Text: The trial court instructed the jury as follows: Now, the flight of a person immediately after the commission of a crime or after he is accused of a crime is not sufficient in itself to establish his guilt; but it is a fact which, if proved, may be considered by you in the light of all other proved facts in determining the question of his guilt or innocence. Defendant requested a sentence be added to the instruction: While this inference of guilt goes to identity it does not tell us anything about degree. The trial court refused. Defendant contends that this was error, in violation of his right to due process and reliable death judgment under the federal constitution. The trial court committed no error in refusing this modification to the standard flight instruction, which accurately conveys the potential significance of flight. [T]he flight instruction `[does] not address the defendant's mental state at the time of the offense and [does] not direct or compel the drawing of impermissible inferences in regard thereto.' ( People v. Nicolaus (1991) 54 Cal.3d 551, 579-580, 286 Cal.Rptr. 628, 817 P.2d 893.)