State v. Najera, 1 CA-CR 20-0289

In May 2018 a white pickup side‑swiped R.D.’s vehicle; R.D. followed the truck, noted its plate, and later pointed police to Najera walking near the scene.
Najera exited the truck after the incident, walked down the street, was contacted by police, described as cooperative but intoxicated, and arrested.
A hospital blood draw showed Najera’s BAC was .272% and his license was suspended. He was charged with two counts of aggravated DUI (DUI with suspended license and BAC over .08).
Najera claimed at trial the female passenger had been driving, but she did not testify; the State presented R.D.’s identification and Najera’s statements to police.
The superior court gave a modified jury flight instruction over Najera’s objection (replacing “running away, hiding, or concealing evidence” with the word “flight”).
The court of appeals held that (1) giving a flight instruction and (2) modifying the standard flight instruction were errors, but both were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the other evidence; convictions and sentences affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported a flight instruction	Evidence that Najera continued driving, left the vehicle, walked away, and R.D. pursued supports inference of consciousness of guilt	Mere leaving/walking without haste or concealment is not flight and does not show consciousness of guilt	Giving a flight instruction was error: no evidence of open flight or concealment supporting guilt inference
Whether modifying the standard flight instruction was proper	Court may adapt wording to fit facts; Najera left the vehicle so broader term acceptable	Replacing specific verbs with “flight” obscured legal standard and invited impermissible inferences (e.g., hit‑and‑run)	Modification was error: it made the instruction circular and potentially misleading
Whether the errors require reversal	N/A — State argues errors are harmless because of overwhelming evidence (BAC .272, suspended license, Najera’s admissions, R.D.’s ID)	Instruction was prejudicial and could have affected juror reasoning	Errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given Najera’s admissions and the weight of the evidence; convictions affirmed

State v. Solis, 236 Ariz. 285 (App. 2014) (applies harmless‑error review to erroneous flight instruction)
State v. Smith, 113 Ariz. 298 (1976) (flight instruction requires evidence of open flight or concealment)
State v. Wilson, 185 Ariz. 254 (App. 1995) (mere departure without haste or concealment cannot support flight instruction)
State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 (1993) (flight instruction permits inference of consciousness of guilt for charged offense)
State v. Weible, 142 Ariz. 113 (1984) (flight must be conduct that invites suspicion or announces guilt)
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (State bears burden to show error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)