Court Opinion

ID: 9530915
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:05:11.643278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:17.521326
License: Public Domain

*513OPINION CONCURRING IN RESULT
Hoffman, J.
I concur in the result.
The trial court properly denied the motion in limine and gave “STATE’S REQUESTED INSTRUCTION NO. 7” with regard to escape.
Evidence that there was flight or escape while being held on a charge has always been admissible upon the issue of guilt of the defendant. Layton v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 205, 240 N.E.2d 489; Meredith v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 233, 214 N.E.2d 385; Anderson v. The State (1886), 104 Ind. 467, 4 N.E. 63.
The fact that defendant was also being confined on other charges does not make evidence of escape inadmissible. To so hold would penalize a defendant confined on one charge and bestow a benefit on a defendant held on multiple charges. Such is not the law.
The trial court did not err in denying the motion in limine or giving the instruction.
Note. — Reported at 364 N.E.2d 175.