Court Opinion

ID: 9592792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:16:58.012934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:26.197701
License: Public Domain

*567DONIELSON, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. As the majority points out, submission of a flight instruction does not necessarily constitute reversible error unless it is prejudicial. I find State v. Marsh, 392 N.W.2d 132 (Iowa 1986), to be controlling. In Marsh, as in the case at hand, given all the facts adduced, defendant was not prejudiced by the flight instruction. In Marsh, defendant conceded he was fleeing from the police officer, albeit for a different reason than being a suspect for the immediate offense. Here, defendant conceded he was fleeing from the driver of the vehicle. There is no requirement that defendant’s flight be from a police officer, but only that defendant fled from the scene of the crime. In State v. Wullner, 401 N.W.2d 214 (Iowa App.1986), the court found that the flight instruction was a correct statement of the law and left for the jury’s deliberations the determination of why the flight occurred. Id. at 217. In addition, the flight instructions given in Marsh and in the case at hand are virtually identical. Here, as in Marsh, the evidence of defendant’s guilt was strong.
I would find there was no error in submitting the flight instruction; but assuming arguendo it was error, defendant failed to show he was prejudiced.