Opinion ID: 1649620
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 24

Heading: Failure to investigate Brown's flight to Memphis.

Text: ¶ 29. Brown claims that if counsel had investigated and presented an explanation for his disappearance, there would have been a more effective basis for objecting to the court's error in giving an instruction on unexplained flight. Brown cites this Court's decision in Pannell v. State, 455 So.2d 785 (Miss.1984) which holds that a flight instruction is not warranted where a defendant's explanation for his flight is wholly uncontradicted and not incredulous or unbelievable. Brown, in his petition, admits going to Memphis, buying a gun and registering under another name in the days after the crime when he knew the sheriff was looking for him. There may not be a plausible explanation for this, but defense counsel nonetheless elicited testimony from a co-worker that Brown left his place of employment because the investigators did not show up. Counsel further attempted to introduce the testimony of Brown's mother that threats had been made against him. The trial judge, however, ruled the proffered testimony inadmissible as hearsay. This Court has established that flight generally is admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt. Fuselier v. State, 702 So.2d 388, 390 (Miss. 1997). Under the circumstances, it appears that trial counsel did all that could be done to present a credible explanation for Brown's disappearance. This issue is without merit.