There has been some testimony in the case from which you may infer that the defendant
fled shortly after the alleged commission of the crime. The defendant denies any flight, (or, the
defendant denies that the acts constituted flight). The question of whether the defendant fled
after the commission of the crime is another question of fact for your determination. Mere
departure from a place where a crime has been committed does not constitute flight. If you find
that the defendant, fearing that an accusation or arrest would be made against (him/her) on the
charge involved in the indictment, took refuge in flight for the purpose of evading the accusation
or arrest on that charge, then you may consider such flight in connection with all the other
evidence in the case, as an indication or proof of consciousness of guilt. Flight may only be
considered as evidence of consciousness of guilt if you should determine that the defendant's
purpose in leaving was to evade accusation or arrest for the offense charged in the indictment.
OR
(THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE USED WHERE THE DEFENSE HAS NOT DENIED
THAT (HE/SHE) DEPARTED THE SCENE BUT HAS SUGGESTED AN
EXPLANATION.)
There has been some testimony in the case from which you may infer that the defendant
fled shortly after the alleged commission of the crime. The defense has suggested the following
explanation:
(SET FORTH EXPLANATION SUGGESTED BY DEFENSE)
If you find the defendant’s explanation credible, you should not draw any inference of the
defendant’s consciousness of guilt from the defendant’s departure.
If, after a consideration of all the evidence, you find that the defendant, fearing that an
accusation or arrest would be made against (him/her) on the charge involved in the indictment,
took refuge in flight for the purpose of evading the accusation or arrest, then you may consider
such flight in connection with all the other evidence in the case, as an indication or proof of a
consciousness of guilt.
It is for you as judges of the facts to decide whether or not evidence of flight shows a
consciousness of guilt and the weight to be given such evidence in light of all the other evidence
in the case.
FLIGHT
Page 2 of 2
CASES:
State v. Mann, 132 N.J. 410 (1993).
State v. Leak, 128 N.J. Super. 212 (App. Div.), certif. denied 65 N.J. 565 (1974).
State v. Petrolia, 45 N.J. Super. 230 (App. Div. 1957).
State v. Centalonza, 18 N.J. Super. 154, 161 (App. Div. 1952).
NOTE:
1. Mere departure from the scene is distinguished from flight.
See: State v. Sullivan, 43 N.J. 209 (1964).
State v. Jones, 94 N.J. Super. 137 (App. Div. 1967)
2. State v. Wilson, 57 N.J. 49 (1970) states:
"You the jury must first find that there was a "departure" from the scene and then
you must also find a motive which would turn the departure into flight." This
charge may be necessary to include contingent upon the right factual context.
