Opinion ID: 1649620
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 50

Heading: Flight as an aggravating circumstance instruction.

Text: ¶ 58. Brown argues that it was error to instruct the jury that avoiding lawful arrest was an aggravating circumstance because there was evidence to explain his flight. As previously discussed, the proffered testimony that Brown feared for his life was properly excluded as hearsay. This issue could have been raised on direct appeal and is now procedurally barred pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21(1). Without waiving the bar, the State correctly notes that an explanation for Brown's flight to Memphis does not impact whether he committed one of the murders for the purpose of avoiding arrest. This Court has previously held: Each case must be decided on its own peculiar fact situation. If there is evidence from which it may be reasonably inferred that a substantial reason for the killing was to conceal the identity of the killer or killers or to cover their tracks so as to avoid apprehension and eventual arrest by authorities, then it is proper for the court to allow the jury to consider this aggravating circumstance. Leatherwood v. State, 435 So.2d 645, 651 (Miss.1983). Brown v. State, 682 So.2d 340, 355 (Miss. 1996). At trial, James Coleman Jones testified that Brown told him that he killed Evangela because [s]he's trying to leave, and he just said he had to stop her any way he could. This issue is without merit notwithstanding the procedural bar.