N.J. Model Criminal Jury Charge, N.J.S.A. Non 2C

Revised 5/10/10

FLIGHT1

There has been some testimony in the case fr om which you may infer that the defendant

fled shortly after the alleged commission of the crime. 2 The defendant denies any flight, (or, the

defendant denies that the acts c onstituted flight). The question of whether the defendant fled

after the commission of the crime is another que stion of fact for your determination. Mere

departure from a place where a crime has been committed does not constitute flight. If you find

that the defendant, fearing that an accusation or arrest would be made against him/her on the

charge involved in the indictment, took refuge in flight for the purpose of evading the accusation

or arrest on that charge, then you may consider such flight in connec tion with all the other

evidence in the case, as an indication or proof of consciousness of guilt. Flight may only be

considered as evidence of consciousness of gu ilt if you should determin e that the defendant's

purpose in leaving was to evade accusation or arrest for the offense charged in the indictment.

OR

(THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE USED WHERE THE DEFENSE HAS NOT DENIED

THAT HE/SHE DEPARTED THE SCENE BUT HAS SUGGESTED AN

EXPLANATION)

There has been some testimony in the case from which you may infer that the defendant

fled shortly after the a lleged commission of the crime. The defense has suggested the following

explanation:

(SET FORTH EXPLANATION SUGGESTED BY DEFENSE)

1 See State v. Mann, 132 N.J. 410 (1993); State v. Leak , 128 N.J. Super . 212 (App. Div.), certif.

denied, 65 N.J. 565 (1974); State v. Petrolia, 45 N.J. Super. 230 (App. Div. 1957); State v. Centalonza, 18

N.J. Super. 154, 161 (App. Div. 1952).

NOTE: 1. Mere departure from the scene is distinguished from flight. See: State v.

Sullivan, 43 N.J. 209 (1964); State v. Jones, 94 N.J. Super. 137 (App. Div. 1967); and

2. State v. Wilson, 57 N.J. 49 (1970) states:

“You the jury must first find that there was a "departure" from the scene

and then you must also find a motive which would turn the departure into

flight." This charge may be necessary to include contingent upon the

right factual context.

2 This charge should NOT be given simply because a defendant is being tried in absentia. State v.

Horne, 376 N.J. Super. 201 (App. Div. 2001). It might be appropriate if a defendant flees during trial. Id.

at 210.

FLIGHT

If you find the defendant’s e xplanation credible, you should not draw any inference of the

defendant’s consciousness of guilt from the defendant’s departure.

If, after a consideration of all the evidence, you find that the defendant, fearing that an

accusation or arrest would be made against him/ her on the charge involved in the indictment,

took refuge in flight for the pur pose of evading the accusation or arrest, then you may consider

such flight in connection with al l the other evidence in the case, as an indication or proof of a

consciousness of guilt.

It is for you as judges of the facts to deci de whether or not evidence of flight shows a

consciousness of guilt and the weight to be given such evidence in light of all the other evidence

in the case.