flight. We disagree. “[A] trial court may not instruct a jury on defendant’s flight unless ‘there is some evidence in the record reasonably supporting the theory that defendant fled after commission of the crime charged.’ ” State v. Levan, 326 N.C. 155, 164-65, 388 S.E.2d 429, 433-34 (1990) (quoting State v. Irick, 291 N.C. 480, 494, 231 S.E.2d 833, 842 (1977)). The State presented evidence in the case tending to show the following: that after defendant shot the victim, his estranged wife told him she had called “911”; that when sirens were heard in the distance, Dean Fowler told defendant they should leave; and that defendant then got into a car and left the scene. This is sufficient evidence of flight to warrant the instruction. See State v. Reeves, 343 N.C. 111, 468 S.E.2d 53 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Defendant’s argument is without merit. We
holding that evidence showing the defendant after shooting the victim ran from the scene got into a car nearby and drove away was sufficient evidence of flight holding that mcbrides presence at and flight from the scene was insufficient to sustain his conviction where the state failed to present any evidence that established mcbrides intent that the victim be shot or that he committed an act in furtherance of the shooting holding that evidence the victim tried to keep defendant from fleeing the scene of a crime and defendant killed victim in order to escape supported the finding that murder was committed to avoid arrest holding that circumstantial evidence that defendant drove the car and fled the scene after his brother committed robbery was insufficient to sustain defendants conviction absent other evidence of defendants intent to aid in the robbery holding that erroneous instruction that flight from the scene of the crime implied guilt was harmless because there was other evidence to sustain a conviction