The Delaware Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of Jacob Thompkins, who was found guilty of multiple charges including burglary, robbery, and assault. The court ruled on October 9, 2026, that the jury instructions given during his trial were appropriate, despite Thompkins' appeal claiming they were prejudicial. This decision affects Thompkins, who is now facing a lengthy prison sentence, and sets a precedent regarding jury instructions in cases involving flight after a crime.
The case began on January 11, 2024, when Thompkins knocked on his neighbors’ door, claiming he needed help finding his cat. Instead, he forced his way into their home, stabbed the wife twice in the neck, and struck the husband, who is wheelchair-bound, with a flowerpot. He then stole the wife’s debit card, phone, and car keys before driving away in their vehicle. The following day, Thompkins was apprehended after his sister took him to the police station, where he was found with the stolen items.
The victims identified Thompkins as their attacker, and surveillance footage confirmed his actions. Thompkins was charged with several offenses, including burglary, robbery, assault, possession of a deadly weapon, and theft of a motor vehicle. During the trial, the prosecution requested a jury instruction regarding flight, arguing that Thompkins' departure from the scene indicated a consciousness of guilt. The defense did not object to this instruction.
The jury ultimately found Thompkins guilty on all counts. In his appeal, Thompkins raised two main arguments. First, he claimed that the flight instruction was given without sufficient evidence to support it, arguing that it only indicated he left the scene of a burglary, which all burglars do. The court ruled that even if the flight instruction was inappropriate, it did not constitute plain error that would have affected the trial's outcome. The evidence against Thompkins was overwhelming, including eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence.
Second, Thompkins argued that the flight instruction violated Article IV, Section Nineteen of the Delaware Constitution, which prohibits judges from commenting on the facts of a case. He contended that the flight instruction improperly overlapped with the auto-theft charge, as the act of driving away in the stolen car was part of the alleged crime. However, the court found that the instruction did not comment on the facts of the auto-theft charge. Instead, it explained how the jury could interpret evidence of flight.
The court stated, “The trial judge’s instruction neither directly nor indirectly commented on the truth or falsity of the evidence nor on the weight to be given to the evidence.” The judges involved in the ruling included Justices Legrow, Griffiths, and Zurn. They affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court, which had previously convicted Thompkins.
This ruling is significant as it clarifies the standards for jury instructions in cases involving flight after a crime. It emphasizes that even if an instruction is deemed inappropriate, it must also be shown to have prejudiced the defendant's rights to warrant a reversal of the conviction. The outcome of this case may influence future cases involving similar jury instruction issues.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Thompkins will seek further appeals. The court's decision leaves little room for further legal challenges regarding the jury instructions. As of now, there are no related cases pending that could impact this ruling.