Opinion ID: 2170165
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: issues

Text: Defendant assigns error to the giving of State's Instruction No. 13, which stated: Evidence of flight of a person immediately after the commission of a crime with which he is being charged is a circumstance which may be considered by you in connection with all other evidence to aid in determining the Defendant's guilt or innocence. Defendant argues that evidence of flight alone is not reliable evidence of guilt. However, he apparently misreads the instruction because it merely states that evidence of flight is a circumstance which may be considered with all the evidence in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. The instruction did not command the jury to consider Defendant's flight or evidence of his guilt but merely informed them that it was a circumstance which it could consider. We seriously question the wisdom of giving any instruction which directs the attention of the jury to any specific evidence, without reason other than to advise that it may be considered. There is no need for such instructions, and there is always the risk that the jury may speculate, therefrom, that the judge regards it as having particular significance. We believe that jurors know that they may consider all the evidence that the court has allowed to be presented. However, the instruction given has been approved in the past. James v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 384, 354 N.E.2d 236.