Vernon Headspeth v. United States, No. 11-CF-1669 (decided March 13, 2014)
Players: Judges Blackburne-Rigsby, Thompson,
and Ruiz. Opinion by Judge Thompson. PDS for appellant. Trial
Judge: William M. Jackson.
Facts: Brandon Jennings was shot on December 2,
2010. He survived the shooting, and
testified that Mr. Headspeth, his frequent marijuana dealer, had shot him
during the course of an unsuccessful robbery attempt. After Mr. Jennings identified Mr. Headspeth
shortly after the shooting, the police obtained an arrest warrant. On December 17, 2010, Officer Matthew King
saw Mr. Headspeth, whom he knew, outside a building. Officer King, who verified that the arrest
warrant was outstanding, followed Mr. Headspeth inside the building and started
to detain him. Mr. Headspeth pulled away
and tried to run out the door. Officer
King grabbed Mr. Headspeth’s jacket, and Mr. Headspeth “kind of roll[ed] out of
his jacket,” causing both men to fall.
Mr. Headspeth was then arrested.
The government requested a jury instruction regarding an
arrestee’s flight, i.e., that the
jury may infer from Mr. Headspeth’s flight that he was conscious of his guilt
of the charged offenses. Defense counsel
opposed the instruction on a number of grounds, including that there were facts
not before the jury showing that Mr. Headspeth and Officer King had a
history. Specifically, Officer King had
arrested Mr. Headspeth in 2009 or 2010 for threatening him and Mr. Headspeth
had been acquitted of that charge, and Officer King had arrested Mr. Headspeth
a second time for violating a court order.
The trial court gave the requested flight instruction, reasoning that it
was “not really a very powerful instruction” and it was “reasonably balanced.”
Issue: Did
the trial court err in giving a flight instruction where the jury was unaware
of evidence that tended to show that the defendant may have attempted to flee
for reasons other than his consciousness of guilt of the charged offenses?
Holding: The trial court abused its discretion in giving the flight instruction. It is not necessarily error to give the
flight instruction just because the defendant’s conduct might be explained by
reasons other than consciousness of guilt because the flight instruction tells
jurors that flight may be motivated by a variety of factors that are consistent
with innocence. But in this case, the
jury was unaware of evidence regarding the history between Officer King and Mr.
Headspeth. The jury would therefore have
no reason to consider whether that history, rather than consciousness of guilt,
explained Mr. Headspeth’s attempted flight.
A trial court may not give a flight instruction when evidence not before
the jury suggests a reason for the flight other than consciousness of guilt of
the crimes charged and “there is no reason to think that the jury would
envision that other reason.” The
erroneous flight instruction was not harmless because the government’s two
eyewitnesses had credibility problems, the government’s motive theory was weak,
and there was no physical evidence linking Mr. Headspeth to the shooting.
Of note: Though
the holding is somewhat narrow, the opinion hints at a broader hostility toward
instructions that tell the jury what inferences they may infer from particular
types of evidence. The court cautioned that the flight instruction should be
given “sparingly” and warned that the jury will give great weight to the trial
judge’s instructions about permissible inferences. In addition to the flight instruction, the
category of “permissible inference” instructions includes the standard jury
instructions regarding change of appearance, suppression or fabrication of
evidence, the failure to cooperate during an identification procedure, and
possession of recently stolen property.
These instructions are anachronistic (dating back to a time when juries
were not trusted to sort through evidence on their own and judges were
permitted to comment on the evidence) and a growing number of jurisdictions
have gotten rid of them. It may be worth
arguing this when objecting to these instructions in order to preserve the
issue for appeal. DG.
No comments:
Post a Comment