Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Smith, 552 P.2d 1192.

74 citing documents.

State v. Fattouch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Fattouch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
The court may instruct on concealment when there is evidence supporting an “inference that the accused utilized the element of concealment[.]”
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Such an instruction is appropriate if there is evidence supporting a reasonable inference that: (1) “the flight or attempted flight was open, such as the result of an immediate pursuit,” or (2) “the accused utilized the element of concealment or attempted concealment.”
State v. Foster 559 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Foster 559 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
e “simply proceeded home.” In response, the State contends that “the flight instruction was appropriate because the trial evidence showed that Foster concealed or attempted to conceal himself to avoid arrest.” ¶59 To determine whether the State has presented evidence to support a flight instruction
State of Arizona v. Adam Douglas Haywood 550 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Adam Douglas Haywood 550 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
(“[C]oncealment after a crime .
State v. Jaynes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Jaynes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Herndon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Herndon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
that the accused utilized the element of concealment or attempted concealment.”
State v. Najera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Najera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶10 The court may give a flight instruction if the evidence “supports a reasonable inference that the flight or attempted flight was open, such as the result of an immediate pursuit,” or if there is no open flight, “then the evidence must support the inference that the accused utilized the element of concealment or attempted concealment.”
State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. De Luna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. De Luna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 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
State v. Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Bartels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Bartels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dustin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Dustin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
A flight instruction is thus warranted if the evidence shows the defendant’s flight was open, or if it supports “the inference that the [defendant] utilized the element of concealment or attempted concealment.”
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
A flight instruction is warranted if the evidence “supports a reasonable inference that the flight or attempted flight was open, such as the result of 3 STATE v. GEORGE Decision of the Court an immediate pursuit.”
State v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Self Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Self Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Kennedy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Kennedy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
However, “it is improper to give an instruction which is not clearly supported by the evidence.”
State v. Satovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Satovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
((internal quotation marks omitted) ).
State v. Solis 339 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Solis 339 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Speers 98 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Speers 98 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Corona 932 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Corona 932 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
This evidence was insufficient to support an inference of flight at all, let alone a “reasonable inference that the flight or attempted flight was open, such as the result of an immediate pursuit.”
State v. Wilson 914 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Wilson 914 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
instructive on this issue.