AL · jury_instructions
Ala. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) DESTRUCTION_OF_EVIDENCE
Destruction of Evidence
Destruction of Evidence by Defendant
There has been evidence that the defendant obliterated, destroyed or suppressed
evidence of a crime or attempted or desired to do so to avoid prosecution. Evidence of
the defendant’s destruction of evidence or attempt or desire to do so is admissible for
your consideration to prove consciousness of guilt of the defendant. However, this
evidence can only be considered by you as evidence of consciousness of guilt, but not
as an admission by the defendant of his/her guilt.
When the State of Alabama offers evidence of a defendant’s destruction of
evidence or attempt or desire to do so, then the defendant has the right to s how that the
claimed destruction of evidence or attempt or desire to do so was not in fact such. So
when considering evidence of destruction of evidence or attempt or desire to do so, you
should consider that there may be factors, other than a consciousnes s of guilt, which
could cause the defendant to do so and as such are not proof of consciousness of guilt.
It is up to the jury to decide whether or not the defendant obliterated, destroyed or
suppressed evidence of a crime or tried or desired to do so to avoid prosecution and, if
so, whether or not the defendant’s act was from a consciousness of guilt or for some other
reason.
History
[Approved 04-15-16.]
Provenance
- Source
- judicial.alabama.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-20
- Edition
- 2026-08-20
- Content hash
85ad34699b49a5e1a807b8e53109d43f04667dc467509b79f840037f711b582a
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.