Third-degree fleeing & eluding; MCL 257.602a(3)(b); Flight instruction; M Crim JI 4.4; People v Armstrong; Intent; Prior police contacts; MRE 404(b); MRE 403; Opening the door; People v Benton; Rebuttal evidence

The court held that the trial court did not err by giving the flight instruction, and that defendant was not entitled to relief based on the prosecutor’s questioning about his prior police contacts. He was convicted of third-degree fleeing and eluding after riding his motorcycle through a Dream Cruise traffic-closure area, ignoring an officer’s stop gesture, and speeding away while a marked police vehicle followed with lights and siren activated. On appeal, the court held that the evidence supported M Crim JI 4.4 because defendant “drove an estimated 70 to 80 mph away from the gas station,” his passenger tried to get his attention, and he stopped “in the back area of a business.” The court rejected defendant’s claim that the flight instruction was subsumed within fleeing and eluding, explaining that his “actions after the officer gestured to stop and activated his lights supported the flight instruction.” As to prior police contacts, the court held that defendant opened the door because he was “the first party to introduce evidence of his prior contacts with the police” to show that he routinely stopped for officers, and the prosecutor was entitled to question him further on that subject. Affirmed.