Opinion ID: 1431933
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lack of Flight

Text: The defendant alleges that the court should have given the jury his lack of flight instruction so that the jurors could have considered his lack of flight in their deliberations. The trial court refused the defense instruction. Although flight is relevant to guilt, it does not necessarily follow that lack of flight is relevant to innocence. In an analogous case, we noted: Instructions on flight seem to be premised on ... the supposition that with a consciousness of guilt, `the wicked flee when no man pursueth' to avoid punishment, as observed by this Court through Justice Lorna E. Lockwood in State v. Owen. [citations omitted] Considering the rest of the proverb, ... but the righteous are bold as a lion, it would seem to follow that boldness infers innocence. Contemplated, however, is the state of mind of the guilty and the innocent. Verily, flight to escape detection or capture is circumstantial evidence of guilt. Absence of flight under other circumstances may seem far better calculated to avoid detection. Absence of flight does not necessarily reflect the state of mind. Would that detection of criminals were so simple. State v. Sorensen, 104 Ariz. 503, 509, 455 P.2d 981, 987 (1969). In accordance with our holding in Sorenson, we find that the trial court committed no error when it denied a lack of flight instruction.