Thompson v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2006 · Evidence

393 Md. 291 (2006)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceFlight instructionConsciousness of guiltJury instructionsflightjury instructionMyers testabuse of discretion

Facts

After a street shooting, police broadcast a description of the suspected shooter. Detective Mundy saw Thompson, who matched the description and was on a bicycle, ran toward him, identified himself as police, and Thompson pedaled away faster before being apprehended within five minutes. At a pretrial hearing, the trial court suppressed cocaine found on Thompson and related statements, and dismissed the drug charges. At the second trial, the jury heard evidence that Thompson fled from police, but did not hear that he had said he ran because he had drugs on him; over defense objection, the court gave a flight instruction.

Issue

Is a flight instruction per se improper in a criminal case? If not, did the trial court abuse its discretion by giving a flight instruction where the court knew of a plausible alternative reason for the defendant's flight that the jury did not hear because the related drug evidence had been suppressed?

Rule

A flight instruction is not per se improper in Maryland. But it may be given only when the evidence as tried reasonably supports four inferences: (1) the defendant's behavior suggests flight; (2) the flight suggests consciousness of guilt; (3) that consciousness of guilt relates to the crime charged or a closely related crime; and (4) that consciousness of guilt of the charged crime suggests actual guilt of that crime or a closely related crime. When known but undisclosed facts materially undermine the third inference by supplying an equally reasonable alternative motive for flight, giving the instruction is an abuse of discretion.

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.

In Phoenix, Diego Mercer was tried for aggravated assault after a bar fight. A witness testified that when officers arrived and identified themselves, Diego ran through an alley and hid behind a dumpster until he was found minutes later; no evidence suggested any other offense or alternate motive for running.

If the prosecutor requests a flight instruction, how should the trial judge rule?

Explanation. The majority held that a flight instruction is not per se improper. It may be given when it is a correct statement of law, is applicable under the facts, and is not fairly covered elsewhere, and when the evidence reasonably supports the four inferences connecting flight to guilt of the charged crime. Here, the immediate running and hiding after police identification, with no known alternative motive, supports giving the instruction.