Can a Jury Instruction Unlawfully Compromise a Defendant's Right to Remain Silent and Not to Have That Silence Converted Into Evidence Against Him ? At issue in State v. Fields (1973), 35 Ohio App.2d 140, 300 N.E.2d 207 was the following jury instruction: "Now, in this case, there is evidence tending to indicate that both of the defendants fled from the vicinity of the alleged crime. In this connection, you are instructed that flight in and of itself does not raise a presumption of guilt, but unless satisfactorily explained, it tends to show consciousness of guilt or a guilty connection with the crime. If, therefore, you find that one or both of the defendants did flee from the scene of the alleged crime, and one or both have not satisfactorily explained their conduct in so doing, you may consider this circumstance together with all other facts and circumstances in the case in determining the guilt or innocence of one or both of the defendants." (id. at 144-145.) The Fields court held that the jury instruction "unlawfully compromised" the defendant's right "under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution to remain silent and, further, not to have that silence converted into evidence against him." Id. at 145. The Fields court reasoned as follows: It is apparent from an examination of the above instruction that it may, and almost certainly will, be understood to require a defendant, himself, to "satisfactorily explain" his conduct in fleeing the scene of a crime, and a conscientious juror, intent upon following the law as the court gives it to him, will consequently construe the continuing silence of a defendant as a failure to so satisfactorily explain his conduct in fleeing the scene and, therefore, is to be considered by him as a "circumstance together with all the other facts and circumstances in the case in determining the guilt or innocence" of the defendant. Nor does it cure the defect of this charge to point out, as the state argues, that a defendant may meet this test by a satisfactory explanation of his flight through someone other than himself, while preserving his own right to remain silent. Unfortunately, this is not the only, or even the plain meaning of the charge. the plain meaning is that the defendant shall explain the circumstance, not someone else. If there is another subtler reading of the words, we cannot depend upon or require the jury to make it. Id. at 145-146. In Fields, the reference to whether the flight had been explained was not entirely in the passive voice, and the instruction specifically refers to the defendant as the person who must explain his actions. In this regard, the pertinent portion of the instruction in Fields provided: "If, therefore, you find that one or both of the defendants did flee from the scene of the alleged crime, and one or both have not satisfactorily explained their conduct in so doing, you may consider this circumstance together with all other facts and circumstances in the case in determining the guilt or innocence of one or both of the defendants."