Opinion ID: 2630679
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence of Concealment, Flight, and Avoidance of Arrest to Show Consciousness of Guilt

Text: Relevant evidence is evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. CRE 401. If the evidence is logically relevant to a consequential fact, the court must then determine whether, under CRE 403, the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. People v. Carlson, 712 P.2d 1018, 1022 (Colo.1986). In reaching its decision, the trial court must determine whether and how the evidence at issue is relevant to the case and, if so, to what extent its probative value might be outweighed by any unfair prejudice to the defendant. Welsh, 80 P.3d at 304. The test of relevancy is whether it renders the claimed inference more probable than it would be without the evidence. Bush v. Jackson, 191 Colo. 249, 251, 552 P.2d 509, 511 (1976). According to this test, it does not matter that other inferences may be equally probable; it is for the jury to determine what motivated the behavior. Id. Evidence of flight and concealment to avoid arrest can be admissible to show consciousness of guilt, People v. Bates, 190 Colo. 291, 294, 546 P.2d 491, 493 (1976), but only if it can be shown the defendant was aware he or she was being sought, People v. Perry, 68 P.3d 472, 475 (Colo.App.2002) (internal citations omitted); see also Ortega v. People, 162 Colo. 358, 364, 426 P.2d 180, 183 (1967) ([T]he defendant's conduct at the time of arrest may properly be shown as a circumstance tending to show consciousness of guilt.); 1 Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence § 85, at 420 (1994) (Proof that after the charged crime the accused acted in ways apparently calculated to avoid detection, arrest, prosecution, or conviction is often relevant in suggesting a guilty mind.). Flight means a deliberate attempt to avoid detection and arrest. People v. Morant, 179 Colo. 287, 292, 499 P.2d 1173, 1176 (1972); Gallegos v. People, 166 Colo. 409, 415, 444 P.2d 267, 270 (1968). Such evidence can be relevant because [f]rom a guilty mind, guilt itself may be inferred. 1 Mueller & Kirkpatrick, supra, § 85, at 420 (going on to discuss the circumstantial nature of such evidence, its dependence on inferences, and cautioning against its potential misuse). Although admissible, such evidence is universally considered to be insufficient, standing alone, to support a conviction. Id. at 421-22 (flight evidence is insufficient, standing alone, to support a conviction); see also Bernard v. People, 124 Colo. 424, 426, 238 P.2d 852, 853 (1951) (holding evidence of escape and flight is admissible, not in proof of the crime itself, but in corroboration of other evidence thereof); see also United States v. Rahseparian, 231 F.3d 1257, 1263 (10th Cir.2000) (in a mail fraud case, distinguishing between use of false exculpatory statements to prove circumstantially consciousness of guilt [rather than] as direct evidence of guilt).