OPINION
The appellant, Jarvis Cleveland Craft, was tried by jury in Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CRF-84-4026, and convicted of Grand Larceny, After Former Conviction of a Felony, in violation of 21 O.S. Supp.1982 § 1704, beforе the Honorable Donald C. Lane, District Judge. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and set punishment at twеnty-two (22) years imprisonment. Judgment and sentence was imposed in accordance with the jury’s verdict. We affirm.
For his sole assignment of error, appellant claims that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on flight. The instruction given, from the Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions, reads as follows:
Evidenсe has been introduced of the defendant’s departure shortly after the alleged сrime was committed. You must first determine whether this action by the defendant constituted flight.
*211 The term flight, as it is used in this instruction, means more than departure or concealment. To be in flight, a defеndant must have departed with a consciousness of guilt in order to avoid arrest.
To find that the defendant was in flight you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that: First, the defendant departed; Second, with a consciousness of guilt; Third, in order to avoid arrest for the crime with which he is charged.
If, after a consideration of all the evidence on this issue, you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in flight, then this flight is a circumstance which you may consider with all the other evidence in the case in determining the question of the defendant’s guilt or innoсence. However, if you have a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in flight, then thе fact of any departure is not a circumstance for you to consider.
Appеllant claims that the language “[ejvidence has been introduced of the defendant’s dеparture” assumes that the defendant and the perpetrator were one and thе same; that is, that the defendant was the person who committed the robbery. We disagreе. Initially, we note that appellant did not submit a written alternate instruction to the trial cоurt for consideration. The defendant has a duty to prepare and present its own instruсtions if it is unsatisfied with the court’s. Failure to submit such an instruction waives any error for appellate review. McDonald v. State,
Arguably, any instruction, dissected into small enough sections, could be interpreted in a way to prejudice a defendant. However, an instruction must be read in its entirety to determine if it properly places the question of faсt before the jury. Gonzales v. State,
Finally, the evidence in the record was uncontroverted that the appellant was the person who robbed the jewelry store. All five peоple associated with the store testified at the trial, and all five were positive that appellant was the person who fled the store with two diamond pendants. The imitatiоn leather jacket appellant was wearing at the time of the theft was also identified by witnesses at the trial. Additionally, one of the employees followed appellant when he left the store. She lost sight of him for a short time, but had no trouble recognizing him when he was apprehended moments later. A passerby saw the store employee chasing the man and entered the chase, quickly apprehending him. Almost all of the witnesses alsо identified appellant as the thief due to the peculiar hairstyle he was wearing at the time of the robbery. Appellant presented no evidence to refute these facts. In short, the evidence tending to place appellant at the scene was uncon-troverted. Accordingly, we fail to see how appellant was unfairly prеjudiced by the flight instruction given. Mills v. State,
Having found appellant’s sole proposition without merit, the judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.