Opinion ID: 2103748
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Escape Evidence and Instruction

Text: The defendant contends that his right to a fair trial was impaired both by the admission of evidence concerning an escape from custody and by the giving of an escape instruction. As previously discussed, the defendant was initially arrested on an unrelated Carroll County forgery charge. Ensuing police questioning resulted in the defendant's disclosure of evidence linking him to the murder of Reverend Radcliffe, and the defendant was taken from jail to lead detectives to the location where the murder weapon had been discarded. During this investigatory trip, the defendant escaped. He initially avoided capture but was ultimately returned to jail. Emphasizing that the escape occurred before he was charged with murder and during the time he was being held only on the forgery charge, the defendant argues that the escape evidence was not relevant and did not demonstrate a consciousness of guilt with respect to the charges at issue. He likewise asserts that the escape instruction was not supported by probative evidence. We find that the escape evidence was relevant and admissible. At the time of his escape, the defendant had offered to provide police with information regarding the caliber of the gun used to kill Reverend Radcliffe, the precise location of the murder, and the location of the murder weapon. The defendant was obviously aware of his own involvement in the serious crimes thereafter formally charged. Such evidence is admissible, and its weight and probative force were matters for jury assessment and evaluation. Lee v. State (1982), Ind., 439 N.E.2d 603, 604. The trial court did not err in permitting evidence of the escape. State's Instruction No. 5 stated that the defendant's escape from custody while accused of the crime for which he is now being tried, is not evidence of guilt but is evidence of consciousness of guilt. Record at 325. The defendant argues that the instruction is not supported by the facts, because at the time of his escape he was not being held on the present charges. The defendant erroneously attempts to equate accused of with charged with. We find that the instruction was supported by evidentiary facts or reasonable inferences that when he escaped, the defendant was aware of police suspicions, accusations, and imminent charges regarding his involvement in the subject crimes. We reject the defendant's claims of error in the admission of the escape evidence and the instruction.