What is the test for a jury to consider whether a defendant fled after committing the crimes?

Second, the instruction permissively informed the jury that "if" it concluded defendant fled after committing the crimes, (1) evidence of flight "may" be considered evidence of guilt, (2) the jury was to decide for itself "the meaning and importance" of defendant's flight, and (3) "by itself" flight was not enough to prove guilt. Such a "cautionary instruction . . . benefitted the defense by 'admonishing the jury to circumspection regarding evidence that might otherwise be considered decisively inculpatory.' [Citation.]" (People v. Streeter (2012) 54 Cal.4th 205, 254.)

Finally, the trial court properly instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 200, which provided in relevant part: "Some of the instructions may not apply depending on your findings about the facts of the case. Do not assume just because I give a particular instruction that I'm suggesting anything about the facts. After you've decided what the facts are, follow the instructions that do apply to the facts as you find them." We must presume the jury understood and properly applied that instruction. (People v. Chism (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1266, 1299 [jury presumed to have followed instruction to disregard inapplicable instructions]; People v. Scott (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1090, 1095 [same].) If the jury concluded defendant did not flee, "they would have disregarded the flight

Page 39