Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

263 Ind. 100

325 N.E.2d 186

Frith v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided April 1, 1975

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1975-04-01

Relies on Layton v. State · Meredith v. State · Finger v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1975-04-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 115 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Ortiz v. State (1976), Robinson v. State (1977)

3 federal appellate · 108 state decisions

50019751980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Concurring Opinion

Prentice, J.

¶2I 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.

¶3We 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.

¶4Note. — Reported at 325 N.E.2d 186.

/263/ind/100 · .json · Public domain