Opinion ID: 2581763
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Instruct Sua Sponte on Absence of Flight

Text: Defendant asserts that the superior court erred in failing, sua sponte, to instruct that the jury might consider his absence of flight as a factor tending to show innocence. Pointing to Penal Code section 1127c, which requires an instruction on flight, when supported by the record, as showing consciousness of guilt, he argues that he has a reciprocal right to an instruction on absence of flight, as showing lack of guilt. We discern no error. In People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 39-40 and footnote 26, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468, we held that refusal of an instruction on absence of flight was proper and was not unfair in light of Penal Code section 1127c. We observed that such an instruction would invite speculation; there are plausible reasons why a guilty person might refrain from flight. ( Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at pp. 37, 39, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468.) Our conclusion therein also forecloses any federal or state constitutional challenge based on due process. (See also People v. Williams (1997) 55 Cal. App.4th 648, 652-653, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 [rejecting constitutional argument with regard to instruction on absence of flight].) In the alternative, defendant asserts that trial counsel's failure to request an instruction on absence of flight constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. It was not objectively unreasonable not to request an instruction that has been held improper. Nor can defendant show that he was prejudiced thereby; it is merely speculative that the jury would have reached a different verdict if it had been so instructed.