State v. Gregory S. Welch, 249 A.3d 319

Complainant (defendant’s aunt by marriage) testified that defendant entered her home at night, got on top of her in bed, tried to kiss her, grabbed her arm, and touched her breasts; she pushed him off and he left after she threatened to activate her medical-alert device.
Police went to defendant’s trailer; after being told he was under arrest and allowed briefly to put on shoes, defendant closed the door and fled out the back; troopers later arrested him when he attempted to leave the area by vehicle.
Defendant pled guilty to resisting arrest; a jury trial followed on lewd and lascivious conduct and unlawful trespass; the jury convicted on lewd and lascivious conduct and acquitted on trespass.
At trial the State introduced evidence of defendant’s flight; the court gave a limiting instruction (based on State v. Unwin) that flight does not raise a presumption of guilt, has limited probative value, may reflect innocent explanations, but jurors may weigh it and give it such weight as they think it deserves.
Defendant appealed, arguing the court erred by not explicitly instructing that flight evidence alone is insufficient to convict; because he did not object at trial, the court reviewed for plain error.
The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding no plain error, but endorsed a best-practice instruction that explicitly tells jurors flight alone cannot support a guilty verdict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by not instructing the jury that flight evidence alone cannot support a conviction	State: limiting instruction on flight (from Unwin) was proper and jurors may consider flight as circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt when admissible	Welch: court should have instructed jurors that they may not convict based solely on flight evidence	No plain error; instruction acceptable under precedent, though court recommends best-practice language making clear flight alone is insufficient
Whether language permitting jurors to give flight evidence “such weight as you think they deserve” was prejudicial	State: that language is consistent with jurors’ duty to weigh all evidence and previous approved instructions	Welch: that language could lead jurors to convict based solely on flight	Court: not plain error here — instructions read as a whole emphasized reasonable-doubt standard and limited probative value of flight; also ample other evidence supported the verdict; but future instructions should explicitly forbid conviction based only on flight.

State v. Unwin, 424 A.2d 251 (Vt. 1980) (approving limiting instruction on flight; flight evidence not sufficient alone to convict)
State v. Pelican, 632 A.2d 24 (Vt. 1993) (upholding instruction stressing limited probative value of flight and possible innocent explanations)
State v. Giroux, 561 A.2d 403 (Vt. 1989) (endorsing an instruction explicitly stating flight alone is insufficient to support conviction)
State v. Scales, 164 A.3d 652 (Vt. 2017) (admission of consciousness-of-guilt evidence requires a limiting instruction; endorses Unwin language)
State v. Alexander, 871 A.2d 972 (Vt. 2005) (noting instruction that flight "does not raise any presumption of guilt and has limited value" is robust protection)
State v. Peatman, 185 A.3d 1257 (Vt. 2018) (trial courts have discretion over degree of elaboration in jury instructions)
State v. Alzaga, 221 A.3d 378 (Vt. 2019) (plain-error standard for unpreserved instructional challenges)