Opinion ID: 202348
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Flight as evidence of consciousness of guilt

Text: 53 The defendant argues that the court should not have given an instruction on when flight can constitute evidence of a defendant's consciousness of guilt. He does not challenge the actual language of the instruction, but contends that there was insufficient evidence to warrant any instruction concerning consciousness of guilt in this case. He reiterates the same arguments he raised in his challenge to the prosecutor's reference to his flight in the closing argument. As we concluded, supra Part II.A.2.a, there was sufficient evidence in the record to support an inference of consciousness of guilt from his flight in this case. Moreover, as we also previously discussed, the court carefully instructed the jury that flight did not necessarily reflect a guilty conscience and that the jury should consider that there may be reasons for Timi Wallace's actions that are fully consistent with innocence. In light of the evidence and the court's careful instructions, we find no error here. 54