Opinion ID: 1659705
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the trial court erred in allowing a flight instruction over objection of counsel

Text: Holly next contends that the circuit court erred in allowing the State to give the jury a flight instruction. Instruction S-8 provides as follows: Flight is a circumstance from which guilty knowledge can be inferred. If you believe from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, William Joseph Holly, 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 conscious 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, William Joseph Holly. [A]n instruction that flight may be considered as a circumstance of guilt or guilty knowledge is appropriate only where that flight is unexplained and somehow probative of guilt or guilty knowledge. Reynolds v. State, 658 So.2d 852, 856 (Miss. 1995) (quoting Fuselier v. State, 468 So.2d 45, 57 (Miss. 1985)). This Court has further explained that in determining whether a flight instruction is appropriate, two considerations are paramount: (1) Only unexplained flight merits a flight instruction. (2) Flight instructions are to be given only in cases where that circumstance has considerable probative value. Banks v. State, 631 So.2d 748, 751 (Miss. 1994) (quoting Pannell v. State, 455 So.2d 785, 788 (Miss. 1984)). Holly contends that because his co-defendant corroborated his story that he had packed his bags for an allegedly planned trip to Chicago before abducting and shooting Norwood, his flight was neither unexplained nor probative of his guilt. See Mack v. State, 650 So.2d 1289, 1308 (Miss. 1994) (flight evidence and instruction appropriate only where probative of guilt or guilty knowledge of crime charged and where there are no independent reasons for flight). He therefore likens his case to Banks. However, in Banks, as distinguished from the case sub judice, the defendant claimed to have acted in self-defense, and we determined that a flight instruction was prejudicial when self-defense was argued. Id. at 751. The record indicates that Holly and his friends fled the scene in Norwood's cab. When it broke down, Holly and Benefield stole a Yalobusha County school bus and drove to Chicago. Once there, they attempted to abduct a woman and steal her van which ultimately led to a shoot-out with police. Corroborative evidence that Holly planned to move to Chicago is based on what he told Benefield and Kendall. Further, it is probative of guilt because it suggests that Holly and Benefield were attempting to flee from their crime; in the alternative, it provides a motive for the robbery that set this case in motion. We therefore find no merit to this assignment of error.