181 Conn. App. 440
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant Luis Grajales shot victim Perez inside Perez’s apartment during a family altercation; the shot fractured Perez’s C7 and left him likely paralyzed.
- After the shooting the defendant left in a car, drove under a mile to his basement apartment, removed the ammunition clip from the gun, hid the gun in a dresser, and went to sleep.
- Police searched the residence that night, including the basement; officers did not find the defendant and towed the car. He remained hidden and was discovered and arrested the following morning after police used a key to enter the locked basement room.
- At trial the defendant asserted a justification defense (defense of others). The state sought and the court gave a jury instruction that unexplained flight may indicate consciousness of guilt; the defendant objected to that instruction.
- The jury convicted on first‑degree assault and carrying a pistol without a permit; defendant appealed arguing the flight instruction was not supported by evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the defendant’s post‑offense conduct (flight) could indicate consciousness of guilt | State: evidence showed departure from the scene, police searched his home that night, he hid, removed the magazine, and was not located until next morning — a reasonable inference of flight to evade arrest supports the charge | Grajales: mere departure or returning home does not amount to flight; his actions were explainable by fear and do not support a consciousness‑of‑guilt instruction | Court affirmed: evidence (departure + furtive conduct at home) supported a reasonable inference of flight; instruction within trial court’s discretion and not erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Luster, 279 Conn. 414 (Conn. 2006) (flight evidence is inherently ambiguous but may warrant an instruction)
- State v. Scott, 270 Conn. 92 (Conn. 2004) (jury instruction on flight proper if reasonable view of evidence supports inference of evasion)
- State v. Wright, 198 Conn. 273 (Conn. 1986) (returning to a residence after offense can support a flight inference)
- State v. Thomas, 50 Conn. App. 369 (Conn. App. 1998) (riding home to a residence after stabbing was evidence supporting consciousness of guilt)
- State v. Asberry, 81 Conn. App. 44 (Conn. App. 2004) (departure from scene without elaborate furtiveness can still support flight instruction)