Opinion ID: 2067611
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Object to Instruction

Text: Finally, Roberts claims his attorney was ineffective because he did not object to an instruction regarding Roberts' unexplained possession of the stolen goods. The instruction stated that the failure, if there be, of the Defendant to account for such possession, [is] a circumstance which you may take into consideration in determining whether the defendant committed the robbery. While we agree that it is unexplained possession rather than failure to explain which may be circumstantial evidence of guilt, we do not believe Roberts was harmed by the instruction or by counsel's failure to challenge it. Either phraseology informs the jury that if evidence is presented that Roberts possessed the victim's stolen property and if the record is silent as to an explanation for the possession, guilt may be inferred. Roberts' reliance on Dedrick v. State, (1936), 210 Ind. 259, 2 N.E.2d 409, is misplaced. In Dedrick, the jury was instructed that unexplained possession of stolen goods creates a presumption of guilt. The challenged instruction in this case merely informed that jury about what might be considered as evidence. The jury was charged in other instructions that its role was to determine the law and facts, that Roberts was presumed innocent, and that the burden of proving his guilt never shifted from the State. Taken as a whole, the charge was proper.