Cited by

¶ 12 (App. 1999) (“Instructing on flight is proper when .

¶ 12 (App. 1999), -69, ¶¶ 4-5 11 STATE v. JAYNES Decision of the Court (2001); ¶ 27 (1999) (noting false

d his presence on the roof of his home when the police arrived at the scene “is insufficient to establish an inference of hiding or concealment.” “[J]ust because he was on the roof of his own home when the police arrived,” he insists, doesn’t prove he was “hiding.” ¶41 “Instructing on flight is proper when the defendant’s conduct manifests a consciousness of guilt.” ¶ 12 (App. 1999), ¶ 5 (2001).

¶16 “Instructing on flight is proper when the defendant’s conduct manifests a consciousness of guilt.” ¶ 12 (App. 1999), – 69, ¶¶ 4–5 (2001).

–71, ¶¶ 12, 14 (App. 1999) (noting that a criminal defendant’s manner of leaving the scene or concealing evidence can reveal “a consciousness of guilt”)

¶ 12 (App. 1999) (“Instructing on flight is appropriate when a defendant’s conduct manifests a consciousness of guilt.”)

¶ 11 (2012); ¶ 12 (App. 1999) (instructing the jury on flight is appropriate when a defendant’s conduct manifests a consciousness of guilt), overruled on other grounds

The question is “whether there is evidence from which it can be reasonably inferred that the defendant engaged in some ‘eluding’ conduct that either was an attempt to prevent apprehension, or was an attempt to postpone apprehension in order to dispose of or conceal evidence that could tie [the defendant] to the crime.” ¶ 12 (App. 1999) (citation omitted)

See Miranda, 200 Ariz. at 68-69, ¶¶ 4-5 ( and In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV133051, ).

¶15 A defendant driving slowly for a short distance, before pulling into a parking lot for a police vehicle displaying lights, but no siren, is not a strong indication of flight as a result of pursuit, ¶ 14 (App. 1999) (finding such behavior “may be too equivocal”), however this evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding and is not an abuse of discretion.

69, ¶ 5, , 508 (2001); ¶ 25

¶ 12 (App. 1999) (citation omitted)

–70 ¶¶ 9, 11 & n.1, –60 & n.1 (App. 1999) disapproved of by State v. Miranda, 3 STATE v. JONES Decision of the Court P.3d 506 (2001) ( 664

“The elements test requires that commission of the greater offense always result in commission of the lesser offense.” 3 In applying the elements test, “we focus on the elements of each provision” (A

571 ¶ 19, , 661 ¶ 19 (App.1999).

¶ 7 Miranda bases his argument entirely upon this court’s , (review denied May 18, 2000), which held that disorderly conduct is not a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault under the above-cited statutory provisions.