Hunt v. State
454 S.W.3d 771
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- Victim (N.H.) reported in May 2012 that her uncle, Stanley Ray Hunt II, had sexually assaulted her beginning about five years earlier; she was 14 when she first reported it.
- Police began investigating in May 2012 but were unable to locate Hunt for roughly eleven months despite repeated efforts; a warrant issued in February 2013.
- Officers located Hunt at a residence on April 11, 2013; as officers identified themselves and approached, Hunt ran out the back door and escaped. A multi-agency search failed to find him; he turned himself in four days later.
- At trial Hunt denied the rapes and offered, both in motions and at trial, that he fled because he feared being arrested for drugs at the residence, not because he knew of the rape warrant.
- The trial court admitted testimony about Hunt’s flight as independent evidence of consciousness of guilt and gave a nonmodel jury instruction that flight may be considered as circumstantial evidence corroborating guilt. Hunt was convicted by a jury of three counts of rape and sentenced to concurrent 40-year terms; he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Hunt's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of flight evidence | Flight is irrelevant unless State proves a connection between the flight and the charged crime (11-month gap, Hunt unaware of warrant, possible drug-related motive) | Flight is admissible as independent evidence of consciousness of guilt; police actively sought Hunt and a warrant issued shortly before the arrest attempt | Admission of flight testimony was not an abuse of discretion—evidence was independently relevant to consciousness of guilt given the active search, warrant issuance, and family/community knowledge |
| Jury instruction on flight | Instruction was inadequate and should have cautioned jurors that guilt cannot be presumed from flight and that flight may be explained by innocent motives | Instruction permissibly told jurors they "may" consider flight as circumstantial corroboration and did not shift burden | No reversible error. Instruction did not shift burden; failure to give a more detailed cautionary model instruction was not preserved for appeal and did not warrant reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Kidd v. State, 24 Ark. App. 55, 748 S.W.2d 38 (Ark. App. 1988) (acts to avoid punishment, including flight, may be admissions by conduct and circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt)
- Flowers v. State, 342 Ark. 45, 25 S.W.3d 422 (2000) (evidence of flight to avoid arrest may be considered by the jury as corroborative of guilt)
- Eliott v. State, 342 Ark. 237, 27 S.W.3d 432 (2000) (flight has evidentiary value on probable guilt)
- Murphy v. State, 255 Ark. 90, 498 S.W.2d 884 (1973) (flight, even if not immediately after the crime, is generally admissible as a circumstance for determining guilt)
- Cooper v. State, 317 Ark. 485, 879 S.W.2d 405 (1994) (a defendant’s explanations for flight go to weight and credibility for the jury)
- Killcrease v. State, 310 Ark. 392, 836 S.W.2d 380 (1992) (same—defendant’s version is for jury credibility)
- Bragg v. State, 328 Ark. 613, 946 S.W.2d 654 (1997) (trial court has wide discretion in balancing probative value and unfair prejudice under Rule 404(b))
- Fitting v. State, 94 Ark. App. 283, 229 S.W.3d 568 (Ark. App. 2006) (Rule 404(b) applies to prior and subsequent bad acts; nonexclusive list of permissible purposes)