Opinion ID: 1658324
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Did the trial court err in giving instruction S-3 pertaining to flight?

Text: Instruction S-3 reads as follows: Flight is a circumstance from which guilty knowledge and fear may be inferred. If you believe from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant, Gary Dale Lightsey, did flee or go into hiding, such flight or hiding is to be considered in connection with all other evidence in this case. You will determine from all the facts whether such flight or hiding was from a conscience sense of guilt or whether it was caused by other things and give it such weight as you think it is entitled to in determining the guilt or innocence of the Defendant, Gary Dale Lightsey. Appellant argues there was no evidence to support a flight instruction. An eloquent history of the evolution of the flight instruction was set out by this Court in Pannell v. State, 455 So.2d 785 (Miss. 1984). In Pannell, the Court reached a two-part conclusion concerning the law of flight: (1) Only unexplained flight merits a flight instruction. (2) Flight instructions are to be given only in cases wherein that circumstance has considerable probative value. Id. at 788. Our primary consideration in the present case is whether the alleged flight had considerable probative value. Assuming the alleged flight consisted of Lightsey's abandoning the borrowed car, this Court does not find the flight probative of any element of the burglary. The abandonment might have been probative that Lightsey did not return to the car, but it does not prove why. Based on the erroneous giving of the flight instruction we hereby reverse the burglary conviction of Gary Dale Lightsey and remand to the Circuit Court of Jones County for proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED. WALKER, C.J., ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and DAN M. LEE, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. HAWKINS, P.J., not participating.