Opinion ID: 2549367
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Adequacy of the Flight Instruction

Text: Graham argues that the language of the flight instruction was improper because it did not clearly inform the jury that finding evidence of flight or concealment is a predicate to weighing such evidence. To preserve a jury instruction issue for appeal, Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 30 requires a party to object[ ] thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which that party objects and the grounds of the objection. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 30. Graham did not object to the language of the instruction when it was given. When a party fails to object to an instruction in the manner required by Rule 30, we are limited to reviewing that instruction for plain error. ( Henry) Brown, supra, 881 A.2d at 593 (citing Green v. United States, 718 A.2d 1042, 1056 (D.C.1998)); Williams v. United States, 858 A.2d 984, 990-92 (D.C.2004). The plain error standard presents a high threshold. Appellant not only must establish error, but also that the error is plain and that it affect[s] substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); Wilson v. United States, 785 A.2d 321, 326 (D.C.2001). The instruction given at trial included the sentence  If you find evidence of flight or concealment, you should consider and weigh such evidence along with all the other evidence in the case and give it the weight that you think it deserves. (emphasis supplied). Nevertheless, Graham argues that the instruction was flawed because that statement should be prefatory, as reflected in the revised 2008 instruction. [12] We disagree. Graham relies on Scott v. United States, 412 A.2d 364 (D.C.1980), where we held that a flight instruction was inadequate where it did not instruct the jury that it was not bound to consider the flight evidence unless it was convinced that flight had been established. Id. at 372. However, the instruction in Scott failed to give any indication whatsoever that the jury must first find evidence of flight before considering it. Id. Here, while not at the beginning of the instruction, the jury was correctly instructed. In fact, the instruction given here included the clause If you find evidence of flight or concealment in direct response to our decision in Scott. CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Comment to No. 2.44 (4th Ed. 2004). While the 2008 revised instruction did move the language to the beginning of the instruction, this move was for clarification only. CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Comment to No. 2.44 (6th Ed. 2008) (The Committee did not intend to make any substantive change in the contents of the instruction.). Admittedly, the current formulation of the instruction puts more emphasis on the jury's role in first finding evidence of flight, and may prove to be clearer. Nevertheless, we are unaware of any casesand Graham points us to nonewhere the court found the instruction used at Graham's trial erroneous; we decline to find error now. The flight instruction given at trial properly informed the jury that they must first find evidence of flight before weighing such evidence.