Daniel v. State

6 Citing cases

  1. McCord v. State

    622 N.E.2d 504 (Ind. 1994)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that instruction does not unduly suggest to jury inference it should draw from flight

    Id. We have held that flight may be considered. Menefee v. State (1987), Ind., 514 N.E.2d 1057. The instruction in the present case is very similar to one which we approved in Daniel v. State (1988), Ind., 524 N.E.2d 1275. A flight instruction does not invade the province of the jury or unduly emphasize one piece of the evidence when jurors are told that flight of the accused is a circumstance from which they may draw an inference of guilt when it is considered in connection with other evidence presented. Phillips v. State (1990), Ind., 550 N.E.2d 1290.

  2. Patel v. State

    533 N.E.2d 580 (Ind. 1989)   Cited 18 times
    In Patel, photographs showing a slashed throat and various other stab wounds of the neck and chest were admissible to depict the fatal wound.

    Since he was able to identify the object, chain of custody was not as relevant as might be expected with fungible items which do not have their own peculiar identity. See Daniel v. State (1988), Ind., 524 N.E.2d 1275, 1277-78. The trial court has discretion to admit exhibits into evidence and need not require absolute and positive identification.

  3. Dill v. State

    727 N.E.2d 22 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 6 times

    We agree with the trial court's observation that Indiana jurisprudence remains unclear about the use of such instructions. The giving of this instruction has been upheld in legions of cases, including Daniel v. State, 524 N.E.2d 1275, 1278 (Ind. 1988); Hudson v. State, 496 N.E.2d 1286, 1292 (Ind. 1986); Kiper v. State, 445 N.E.2d 1353, 1359 (Ind. 1983); Powers v. State, 431 N.E.2d 799, 800 (Ind. 1982); Wolfe v. State, 426 N.E.2d 647 (Ind. 1981); Taylor v. State, 602 N.E.2d 1056, 1061-62 (Ind.Ct.App. 1992), trans. denied (1993); Dalton v. State, 418 N.E.2d 544, 546 (Ind.Ct.App. 1981). However, in Bellmore v. State, 602 N.E.2d 111 (Ind. 1992), our supreme court signaled that it may be changing its position with regard to the instruction.

  4. Utley v. State

    699 N.E.2d 723 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 25 times
    Finding that the nature of the defendant's relationship with the victim was highly probative and relevant to explain the context of the argument which preceded the events which culminated in the victim's death and any motive the defendant may have had to harm the victim

    We believe the prosecutor's argument was appropriate to demonstrate Utley's consciousness of guilt. See Daniel v. State, 524 N.E.2d 1275, 1278 (Ind. 1988) (an attempt to avoid police is circumstantial evidence of the defendant's consciousness of guilt which the jury may consider, in connection with other evidence presented, to find guilt). In any event, the correct procedure to be employed when the prosecutor makes an improper argument is to request that the trial court admonish the jury and, if further relief is desired, to request a mistrial.

  5. Gibson v. State

    622 N.E.2d 1050 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that the State is not "required to prove the presence of a third-party thief in order to convict defendant of receiving stolen property."

    Flight is a circumstance which the trier of fact may consider, in connection with other evidence presented, to find guilt. See Daniel v. State (1988), Ind., 524 N.E.2d 1275, 1278. Gibson also removed the contents from the wallet, attempted to conceal various items on his person after his arrest and physically resisted efforts by officers to determine what he was hiding.

  6. Adams v. State

    542 N.E.2d 1362 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 15 times

    At trial, Adams argued that such an instruction placed undue emphasis on "particular evidence," (Record, p. 529), and, in his brief, Adams further argues that such an instruction is unnecessary in light of the fact that flight is an element of resisting law enforcement, one of the counts with which Adams was charged. However, in Daniel v. State (1988), Ind., 524 N.E.2d 1275, our Supreme Court held that giving an instruction on the law of flight, even though Daniel was also charged with resisting law enforcement, did not place undue emphasis on the issue of flight; the instruction "presented an inference of guilt of the defendant as to the [other] charge." Daniel, supra, at 1278.