Utah Court of Appeals
Can trial courts give flight instructions when flight occurs before the charged offense? State v. Riggs Explained
Summary
Defendant Riggs fled from police in a stolen vehicle while intoxicated and crashed, killing three people. He challenged the trial court’s flight instruction and denial of his motion to suppress statements made before receiving Miranda warnings. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed both rulings.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In State v. Riggs, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether trial courts can properly instruct juries about flight evidence when the defendant’s flight occurred before committing the primary charged offense. This case provides important guidance for practitioners defending criminal cases involving flight instructions and custodial interrogation issues.
Background and Facts
Riggs was driving a stolen pickup truck while intoxicated when a Utah Highway Patrol trooper attempted to stop him. Riggs fled at high speed, ran a red light, and crashed into another vehicle, killing three people. His blood-alcohol level was nearly twice the legal limit. While hospitalized and in custody, an officer asked Riggs “Do you remember the accident?” without providing Miranda warnings. Riggs responded that he knew the truck was stolen before the officer turned on his lights and decided to run. The trial court gave a flight instruction and denied Riggs’s motion to suppress his statement.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed two issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in giving a flight instruction when the flight occurred before the automobile homicides, and (2) whether the court properly denied the motion to suppress Riggs’s unMirandized statement.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed on both issues. Regarding the flight instruction, the court distinguished State v. Howland and found the instruction proper because the trial court instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of driving under the influence, which related to the flight evidence. Even though the fatal crash occurred after the flight, the jury could consider the flight evidence regarding the lesser offense of DUI.
On the Miranda issue, the court held that asking “Do you remember the accident?” did not constitute custodial interrogation under Rhode Island v. Innis. The question was not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response and served only to determine if Riggs was capable of being questioned, given his head injury and medicated condition.
Practice Implications
This decision shows how lesser included offense instructions can validate otherwise problematic flight instructions. Defense attorneys should carefully examine jury instructions for lesser offenses that might create unexpected relationships with flight evidence. The Miranda analysis also demonstrates that courts will consider context and purpose when determining whether police questioning constitutes interrogation requiring warnings.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Riggs
Citation
1999 UT App 271
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
Case No. 971012-CA
Date Decided
September 24, 1999
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Trial courts may properly give flight instructions when the jury is instructed on lesser included offenses that relate to the evidence of flight, even when the flight occurs before the primary charged offense.
Standard of Review
Correctness for flight instruction decisions; clear error for factual findings underlying motion to suppress with correctness for conclusions of law and measure of discretion for application of legal standard to facts
Practice Tip
When defending cases involving flight evidence, examine whether jury instructions on lesser included offenses create relationships that support otherwise improper flight instructions.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.