STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOHN SELLOWÂ Â (14-06-0579, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1526-15T2

On Jan. 8, 2014, three plain-clothes Passaic County sheriff’s officers with visible badges activated lights and approached John Sellow as he sat in his car to execute outstanding child-support arrest warrants.
When told he was under arrest and ordered to exit, Sellow backed up, drove away (jumping a curb and forcing officers to avoid being hit), and led officers on a high-speed pursuit involving traffic violations.
Sellow eventually stopped, exited the vehicle, left it in gear (it rolled into a utility pole), and attempted to run; officers pursued on foot and subdued him while he flailed his arms resisting handcuffing.
He received traffic summonses; a grand jury later indicted him for second-degree eluding and fourth-degree resisting (and a third-degree resisting count).
At trial, defense counsel objected to a jury instruction allowing the jury to consider Sellow’s post-stop running as “flight” indicative of consciousness of guilt for the eluding charge.
The trial judge instructed the jury on flight (limited to the eluding charge), convicted Sellow of eluding and resisting, merged resisting into eluding at sentencing, and imposed a six-year term. Sellow appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by instructing the jury that post-stop running could be considered "flight" showing consciousness of guilt for eluding	The State: flight is admissible as probative of consciousness of guilt; running after the eluding was complete could be considered flight tied to eluding	Sellow: he fled before committing any separate crime; flight instruction improperly allowed inference of guilt where no underlying crime existed at time of flight	Affirmed: flight instruction was proper; jury may infer flight from departure with intent to avoid apprehension for the crime of eluding; judge appropriately limited the instruction to eluding

State v. Baum, 224 N.J. 147 (instructional accuracy and importance of proper jury charges)
State v. Reddish, 181 N.J. 553 (court’s duty to ensure accurate jury instructions)
State v. Green, 86 N.J. 281 (clarifying the court’s role in explaining legal questions to jury)
State v. Scharf, 225 N.J. 547 (reinforcing trial court’s instruction obligations)
State v. Bunch, 180 N.J. 534 (erroneous material instructions presumed prejudicial)
State v. McKinney, 223 N.J. 475 (same principle regarding jury instructions)
State v. Mann, 132 N.J. 410 (flight evidence probative as consciousness of guilt)
State v. Randolph, 441 N.J. Super. 533 (flight commonly gives rise to inference of consciousness of guilt)
State v. Randolph, 228 N.J. 566 (affirming guidance on when flight is intrinsically indicative of guilt)
State v. Wilson, 57 N.J. 39 (jury may infer flight from departure made with intent to avoid apprehension)