Cited by

bears on the issue of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt.”

Stated differently, in determining whether to give the instruction, the trial court must “be able to reasonably infer from the evidence that the defendant left the scene in a manner which obviously invites suspicion or announces guilt.” ().

Foster alternatively argues that “due to the many problems associated with flight instructions, Arizona courts should join the ranks of other jurisdictions that have dispensed with the giving of such instructions altogether.” He acknowledges, however, that the Arizona Supreme Court has found that flight or concealment instructions are appropriate under certain circumstances, -17 (1984), and explains he is merely preserving the issue for review.

(“[C]oncealment after a crime .

See, (“[C]oncealment after a crime .

The evidence must be such that the court can reasonably infer “that the defendant left the scene in a manner which obviously invites suspicion or announces guilt.”

Salazar, 112 Ariz. at 357; (instruction is proper when the defendant’s behavior “obviously invites suspicion or announces guilt”).

Woodruff’s elusive behavior “obviously invites suspicion or announces guilt.” ¶ 30 (App. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted) ().

Rather, a flight instruction is proper when the evidence of the defendant’s behavior “obviously invites suspicion or announces guilt.” ¶ 30 (App. 2004) ().

(“Flight instructions point out to jurors that they may consider the defendant’s behavior at or near the scene of the crime as bearing on guilt or innocence.”).

( P.2d 274 (1970)); ¶ 28, (noting test requires that flight evidence allows jury to “‘be able to reasonably infer from the evidence that the defendant left the scene in a manner which obviously invites suspicion or announces guilt’”) ( ).

(“Flight or concealment after a crime is admissible because it bears on the issue of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt.

§ 13-708(A) “is whether the prior felony conviction, resulting in the parole status, would have been authorized by the laws of Arizona.”

¶11 Evidence of flight is admissible to show consciousness of guilt when the defendant flees “in a manner which obviously invites suspicion or announces guilt.”

Stated another way, this test requires that the court “be able to reasonably infer from the evidence that the defendant left the scene in a manner which obviously invites suspicion or announces guilt.”

Nonetheless, recognizing that “pragmatic construction is required if • technical construction would lead to absurdity!,]” , our appellate courts have sought to avoid the absurdity that would result if a person convicted of a drug offense less serious than personal possession or use could be sentenced to prison by interpreting § 13-901.01(A) as mandating probation for less serious drug-related offenses tha

(1985); , , , Deyo v. Arizona Grading & Constr.

Nevertheless, the court of appeals concluded that the prior offense must be a felony in Arizona, based on language from this court’s

In interpreting a statute, “legislative intent is controlling” and “pragmatic construction is required if a technical construction would lead to absurdity.”