BROWN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Brown was convicted of battery after a jury instruction on flight and consciousness of guilt was given at trial. The appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, finding that the flight instruction violated established Florida Supreme Court precedent prohibiting trial courts from commenting on flight evidence, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
The appellate court held that the trial court improperly gave a jury instruction on flight and consciousness of guilt in violation of Florida Supreme Court precedent, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the potential for confusion between the charged battery and an uncharged bad check offense.
[1] A trial court should not instruct the jury on flight and consciousness of guilt.
[2] To affirm a conviction despite an erroneous jury instruction, the State must prove the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In reconsidering the flight instruction, we can think of no valid policy reason why a trial judge should be permitted to comment on evidence of flight as opposed to any other evidence adduced at trial.”
Establishes the foundational principle that trial courts should not give jury instructions commenting on flight evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was charged with battery after allegedly grabbing a check from a Publix store employee's hand and leaving the store. At trial, the trial cou…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Flight Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
401 N. Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 [email protected]
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was charged with one count of battery after allegedly grabbing a check from the hand of a Publix store employee and leaving the store. At trial, the State requested a jury instruction on flight and consciousness of guilt. The trial court granted this request and gave the following instruction: "When a suspected person in any manner attempts to escape or evade a threatened prosecution by flight, concealment, resistance to lawful arrest or other indications after the fact of a desire to evade prosecution. Such fact is admissible, being relevant to the consciousness of guilt which may be inferred from such circumstance." Defendant was found guilty of battery and sentenced to five days in county jail.
Defense counsel objected to the flight instruction, specifically highlighting the potential for confusion between the charged crime of battery and evidence of a collateral, yet uncharged, crime of passing a bad check.
The Florida Supreme Court has held that, "In reconsidering the flight instruction, we can think of no valid policy reason why a trial judge should be permitted to comment on evidence of flight as opposed to any other evidence adduced at trial." Fenelon v. State, 594 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1992). Because the Supreme Court had previously found that "flight alone is no more consistent with guilt than innocence," it held that going forward, "We are thus persuaded that the better policy in future cases where evidence of flight has been properly admitted is to reserve comment to counsel, rather than to the court." Fenelon v. State, 594 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1992). Therefore, the law is clear that a trial court should not give the jury an instruction on flight and consciousness of guilt.
The State must prove that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt or there is no reasonable probability that the error contributed to the conviction. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1138 (Fla. 1986). In light of the evidence at trial, and in particular the potential for confusion between the charged crime of battery and the uncharged crime of passing a bad check, we cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that the flight instruction did not contribute to the verdict. See Crocker v. State, 616 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); see also Paulk v. State, 618 So. 2d 795, 796 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Accordingly, we REVERSE Defendant's conviction and REMAND for a new trial.
CROW, MILLER, and KROLL JJ. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Crocker v. State, 616 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Fenelon v. State, 594 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1992)
- Paulk v. State, 618 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)