Sirdarious Sheriff v. State of Mississippi
156 So. 3d 924
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- On April 18, 2012, Officer Duckworth attempted to stop a vehicle reported stolen; the vehicle pulled into a gas-station lot, then accelerated and later stopped in a neighborhood.
- The driver and two passengers exited and fled; Officer Duckworth apprehended passenger Zachary Bracey, who identified the other occupants as Rahime Williams and "Joshua" (later identified as Sirdarious Sheriff).
- Sheriff was arrested, Mirandized, waived rights, and verbally told Detective Turner he knew the vehicle was stolen though he did not steal it; his written statement did not include that admission.
- At trial Sheriff testified he fled because he believed there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest and panicked, and he asserted he did not know the car was stolen when he ran.
- The trial court gave a flight instruction (S-4) allowing the jury to consider flight as evidence of guilty knowledge; Sheriff objected and appealed after conviction for possession of stolen property and a 10-year sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Sheriff's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a flight instruction (S-4) was proper | Flight was explained by an outstanding warrant and panic; instruction was therefore improper and unfairly prejudicial | Flight was unexplained or contradicted by other evidence (Detective Turner’s testimony that Sheriff admitted knowledge of the vehicle being stolen), so instruction was proper | Instruction proper; no abuse of discretion in giving S-4 |
| Whether evidence of flight was unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 | Probative value outweighed by unfair prejudice because an innocent explanation existed | Probative value substantial because explanation conflicted with other evidence showing guilty knowledge | Flight evidence admissible; probative value not outweighed by prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaw v. State, 915 So. 2d 442 (Miss. 2005) (flight admissible only when unexplained and probative; Rule 403 review afforded trial court great discretion)
- Banks v. State, 631 So. 2d 748 (Miss. 1994) (flight instruction appropriate only for unexplained flight with considerable probative value)
- Pannell v. State, 455 So. 2d 785 (Miss. 1984) (discussing standards for admitting flight evidence)
- Fuselier v. State, 702 So. 2d 388 (Miss. 1997) (evidence of guilt admissible to show consciousness of guilt)
- Saunders v. State, 63 So. 3d 554 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (an explanation of flight must not be contradicted by other evidence to exclude flight instruction)