Opinion ID: 1560801
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Admission of Solicitation of Cellmate for Aid in Escape Plan

Text: The trial court allowed the State to present testimony that Jackson solicited a cellmate's assistance in planning an escape from his incarceration in Florida. On appeal, Jackson contends that this evidence was improper character evidence of a collateral crime that was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. Evidence of escape is probative of the defendant's mental state at the time of the action but must be relevant to the charged crime. See Escobar v. State, 699 So.2d 988, 995-96 (Fla. 1997), abrogated on other grounds by Connor v. State, 803 So.2d 598, 607-08 (Fla. 2001); Straight v. State, 397 So.2d 903, 908 (Fla.1981). This Court stated in Straight that [w]hen a suspected person in any manner attempts to escape or evade a threatened prosecution by flight..., such fact is admissible, being relevant to the consciousness of guilt which may be inferred from such circumstance. Id. (emphasis supplied). Thus, the necessary inquiry to determine relevancy and materiality is whether the evidence establishes a sufficient, identifiable nexus between the escape plan and the crime for which the defendant is being tried. See Murray v. State, 838 So.2d 1073, 1085 (Fla.2002). Here, the evidence was relevant to the crimes for which Jackson was on trial because he was incarcerated pursuant to a grand-jury indictment for these crimes and was attempting to escape before his pending prosecution on the capital offenses and related felonies. There were no other charges from which Jackson could have been attempting to escape other than this capital trial. The time delay between the commission of the murders and the escape attempt did not weaken its probative value because the primary factor prompting Jackson's escape was the pending capital trial which Jackson admitted during his testimony when he discussed his attempt to procure both an alibi witness and his cellmate's assistance to facilitate an escape. [A]fter I talked to the detectives, this is after I did this, everybody is telling me you're going down for murder. You're going to get the death penalty. I'm thinking, man, I'm going down for something I didn't do. ... [S]o I literally come up with a plan. I got to get out of here. (Emphasis supplied.) It is clear from Jackson's testimony that the escape plan was prepared for Jackson to either circumvent the pending capital trial or, as Jackson testified, to have the opportunity to develop a defense unrestrained by incarceration. In addition, Jackson corroborated the testimony of the cellmate by admitting that he solicited the assistance of his cellmate to escape. From the moment Jackson was informed that he was implicated in these murders he was involved in plotting his escape. After learning that he was a suspect during a recorded telephone conversation, Jackson stated, I've got to find ... an escape route or something. Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting this evidence because the factual circumstances established a sufficient, identifiable nexus between the escape plan and the crimes for which Jackson was being tried.