Court Opinion

ID: 9570741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:25:49.867517+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:38.987249
License: Public Domain

LENT, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur without reservation in that portion of the opinion of the court with respect to dismissal under ORS 135.745.1 concur in the result with respect to the refusal of the trial court to instruct upon flight.
Upon the flight issue I would adopt the holding of the majority of the Court of Appeals but would go even further. The majority held:
"[W]e think the better rule is that such instruction should not be given whether with respect to conduct of a defendant or of a witness.” 28 Or App 821, 827, 561 P2d 665 (1977).
I believe that the significance of flight should always be left to argument, whether it be the flight of the defendant, of an in-court witness, or of anyone else. My belief is based on the same line of reasoning as that of the majority in the Court of Appeals and the cases there cited. See also Lee v. Hoff, 163 Or 374, 97 P2d 715 (1940).
I agree with Chief Judge Schwab, who, dissenting in the Court of Appeals, noted that it was "interesting” that the state questions the propriety of the requested instruction and urges in its brief that the requested instruction "singled out” a particular item of evidence. The state’s contention is interesting, because it so often seeks an instruction on flight or concealment when flight of the defendant is involved.