Court Opinion

ID: 9518943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:05:33.499235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:10.672400
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Prentice, J.
I concur in the result and also in the opinion of the majority, except insofar as it appears to hold that presence at the scene of the crime and subsequent flight would be sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a conviction. It is my opinion that standing alone, such circumstantial evidence would not be sufficient.
We have held on a number of occasions, that flight or attempted flight is competent evidence of the consciousness of guilt. Layton v. State, (1968) 251 Ind. 205, 240 N.E.2d 489; Walker v. State, (1968) 250 Ind. 649, 238 N.E.2d 466; Meredith v. State, (1966) 247 Ind. 233, 214 N.E.2d 385; Finger v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 148, 293 N.E.2d 25. (Rehearing denied 297 N.E.2d 819). Whether or not there has been a flight in avoidance or merely an innocent exit must be determined from the surrounding circumstances. If it may be fairly inferred from such circumstances that there was a flight in avoidance, such inference reinforces other legitimate inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence of guilt.
Note. — Reported at 325 N.E.2d 186.