Opinion ID: 1895321
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

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

Text: The court granted Jury Instruction S-3 which states 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, ANTHONY BANKS, did flee or go into hiding, such flight or hiding may be considered in connection with all other evidence in the case. You may 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. There is no dispute that Banks fled the scene after the stabbing took place. There is also no dispute that Patrick Thompson threatened Banks after the stabbing and went searching for a weapon to use. Banks testified that Thompson told him that he was fixing to kill me. Patrick also admitted on the witness stand that he threatened Banks with bodily harm and went to his car searching for a tire iron. Further, in Banks' version of the story Dennis, although wounded, was still armed with a pistol. The history of the evolution of the flight instruction was set out by this Court in Pannell v. State, 455 So.2d 785 (Miss. 1984). The Court found that there were two considerations in deciding whether to grant a flight instruction: (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. Id. at 788. See also Pharr v. State, 465 So.2d 294 (Miss. 1984) and Fuselier v. State, 468 So.2d 45 (Miss. 1985). In Pannell the Court found that there was no probative value in the alleged flight to any element of the crime. The present case does not fall within either of the circumstances where a flight instruction would be appropriate or warranted. Banks' flight was amply explained. He was leaving based on threats from Patrick and on the alleged danger from the victim Dennis. The circumstances of the present case are unlike those in Evans v. State, 579 So.2d 1246 (Miss. 1991) where the defendant's explanation was uncorroborated and contradicted by another witness. There the evidence of flight was probative of the defendant's knowledge of his guilt. In Brock v. State, 530 So.2d 146 (Miss. 1988), a flight instruction was also allowed where the defendant's explanation was contradicted and unsupported by other than his own testimony. Evans and Brock were also both rape cases. The same circumstances are not present in the case before the Court now. The State argues that Banks' reason for flight following the aggravated assault of Dennis Thompson was unexplained, and is probative of his theory of necessary self defense. The State concedes that Banks was threatened by Patrick Thompson following the stabbing, but contends that the flight was in progress when the threat was made. The State takes the position that only the victim can provide a reason for the flight. This argument is neither logical nor based on existing case law. Banks' flight could be based on more than one reason. The State loses sight of the fact that Banks has never denied committing the act of stabbing the victim. Where the defendant is arguing self-defense, a flight instruction should be automatically ruled out and found to be of no probative value. A flight instruction will have particular prejudicial effect in a case where self-defense is argued. Where the person against whom self defense has been exercised is still alive and has the back up support of other persons, flight seems logical and necessary. In other words, in the present case it would seem to have been illogical for Banks not to run. To suggest and highlight, through the sanction of a court granted instruction, that the defendant's flight was possibly an indication of guilt suggests that the court does not accept the self-defense argument. In this case, even the victim ran. The jury heard the testimony on Banks' flight and was free to draw its own conclusions as to the significance. It was clearly reversible error to grant an instruction to call undue attention to Banks' flight.