People v. Cutchall

Michigan Court of Appeals · 1993 · Evidence

200 Mich. App. 396 (1993)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceFlightConsciousness of guiltMRE 403Sentencingflight evidencestate of mindcircumstantial evidence

Facts

Immediately after the victim was stabbed to death in the basement, defendant left Michigan and went to Jacksonville, Florida, where he was arrested eleven days later. At arrest he used the alias "Robert Kline" and told officers they would have to prove he was Rex Cutchall. At trial, the prosecution introduced this flight evidence, and the court instructed the jury on its use. Defendant argued the evidence was improperly admitted and unfairly forced him to explain his flight by discussing his prior record.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence that defendant fled Michigan after the victim's death and used an alias when arrested, on the theory that the evidence showed consciousness of guilt. Also, whether the admission of that evidence was unfairly prejudicial under MRE 403 because it led defendant to reveal his prior criminal record.

Rule

In Michigan, evidence of flight is generally relevant and admissible where it is relevant and material, including to show consciousness of guilt or a defendant's state of mind. Because flight evidence is equivocal, it should be admitted with caution where its probative value is slight in light of the other evidence, and evidence of flight alone may be insufficient to warrant conviction.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After a warehouse stabbing in Toledo, Owen Mercer disappeared that evening and was found nine days later living in Tulsa. At his murder trial, Owen argues the prosecutor cannot introduce the relocation because leaving town is too ambiguous to mean anything.

Should the court admit the evidence of Owen's departure?

Explanation. The majority held that evidence of flight is generally relevant and admissible when relevant and material, including to show consciousness of guilt or a facet of state of mind. Its equivocal nature affects weight and calls for caution, but does not make it categorically inadmissible.