Background
Jacob Thompkins asked his neighbors for help finding his cat, forced his way into their home, stabbed the wife twice in the neck, and struck her wheelchair-bound husband with a flowerpot. He took the wife’s debit card, phone, and keys, then drove away in the couple’s Chevrolet Equinox. The next day, Thompkins’s sister brought him to the police station, where officers found the victims’ car and house keys in his pocket.
Both victims identified Thompkins as their assailant, surveillance evidence showed a person leaving the home and driving away in the victims’ vehicle, and medical and forensic evidence corroborated the attack. The jury received an instruction permitting it to consider proven flight as evidence of consciousness of guilt and convicted Thompkins of burglary, robbery, assault, possession of a deadly weapon, and motor-vehicle theft. Because the defense did not object to the instruction at trial, the Delaware Supreme Court reviewed his challenges for plain error.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the convictions. Assuming without deciding that the evidence was insufficient to support the flight instruction, the court held that giving it was not plain error because Thompkins failed to show prejudice or deprivation of a substantial right. The overwhelming evidence of guilt included eyewitness identifications, corroborating medical and forensic evidence, surveillance footage, and recovery of the victims’ keys from Thompkins.
The court also rejected Thompkins’s claim that the instruction violated Article IV, Section 19 of the Delaware Constitution by commenting on facts underlying the motor-vehicle-theft charge. Although the alleged flight overlapped with the act of taking and driving the victims’ vehicle, the instruction conditioned the jury’s consideration on whether flight had been proved and left the evidence’s meaning and weight entirely to the jury. It therefore explained the legal significance of a possible factual finding without expressing an opinion about whether Thompkins fled or stole the vehicle.
Key Takeaways
- An unpreserved challenge to a jury instruction is reviewed for plain error, requiring a material defect that prejudices a substantial right or undermines the fairness and integrity of the trial.
- Even if a flight instruction lacks sufficient evidentiary support, reversal is unwarranted when overwhelming evidence establishes guilt and the instruction did not affect the outcome.
- A conditional flight instruction does not improperly comment on the facts merely because the alleged flight overlaps with conduct supporting another charged offense.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the difficulty of obtaining reversal based on an unpreserved jury-instruction objection, particularly when the prosecution’s evidence is overwhelming. It also confirms that Delaware judges may explain the legal significance of flight evidence without violating the state constitution, so long as they leave the existence, meaning, and weight of that evidence to the jury.