Opinion ID: 1941530
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timing of Flight

Text: The defendant further challenges the trial justice's failure to include in the instruction certain language from Cooke that defendant had requested regarding the probative value of flight being greater when it occurs immediately after the commission of the crime at issue. Although a defendant is free to request that certain language be included in the jury instructions, there is no requirement that the trial justice use any particular words or phrases in the instruction. Imbruglia, 913 A.2d at 1030; see also Ensey, 881 A.2d at 95; State v. Mastracchio, 546 A.2d 165, 173 (R.I. 1988). Although the specific language requested by defendant concerning the probative value of flight being greater when it occurs immediately after the commission of the crime was not included, the trial justice did include in his instruction language that informed the jury of the importance of considering the time that elapsed between the commission of the crimes and the occurrence of the flight. The trial justice instructed as follows: In considering these factors, it is important that you look at the time which had elapsed between the commission of the crime and the actions of the defendant in attempting to flee or conceal himself in determining whether or not the defendant's reason for fleeing or concealing was because of the commission of a crime. For this reasons, it is our judgment that the trial justice more than sufficiently instructed the jury as to the law relevant to the issue of the timing of flight.