Circumstances of Arrest

In general

• In general, conduct and statements made at the time of arrest may constitute evidence of guilt.

Pillow v. State, 479 N.E.2d 1301, 1306 (Ind. 1985)

Cf. Martin v. State, 47 N.E. 930, 930 (Ind. 1897)(citation omitted)(“Conduct at the time of arrest is admissible as tending to show a consciousness of guilt.”)

Examples

• The jury was also justified in considering the fact that [the defendant] was armed and acted in a threatening manner as evidence of his guilt.

Johnson v. State, 284 N.E.2d 517, 519 (Ind. 1972), on reh’g, 288 N.E.2d 553 (Ind. 1972))(citing Martin v. State, 141 N.E.2d 107, 109 (Ind. 1957), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 354 U.S. 927 (1957))

See Haynes v. State, 293 N.E.2d 204, 207-08 (Ind. Ct. App. 1973)(citing Martin v. State, 141 N.E.2d 107, 109 (Ind. 1957), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 354 U.S. 927 (1957))(“The jury was entitled to take into consideration as evidence of guilt . . . the fact that [the defendant] was armed and acted in a threatening manner.”)

• When the [defendant] saw the police he tried to hide the sack [of various articles used to administer narcotic drugs], as well as moved towards his running car, all of which is some evidence of a consciousness of guilt.

Von Hauger v. State, 266 N.E.2d 197, 198 (Ind. 1971)(citing Layton v. State, 240 N.E.2d 489, 492 (Ind. 1968))

• [The defendant’s] hiding to avoid detection in the burglarized building is further evidence of his intent to commit a felony and like “flight” may be considered along with all the other circumstantial evidence in this case to sustain a finding of that intent.

Moss v. State, 344 N.E.2d 859, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 1976)(citing Long v. State, 335 N.E.2d 631, 632 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975))