Sudden Wealth



• In a prosecution for murder committed in furtherance of robbery, it was proper to admit evidence that a person jointly indicted with the defendant, and who, the evidence tended to show, was present at the commission of the crime, had in his possession, shortly after the crime, money of the same kind and denomination as shown to have been in possession of the victim.

See Musser v. State, 61 N.E. 1, 4 (Ind. 1901),reh'g denied(“[H]e had in his possession money, bills, and gold of the same denomination and kind shown to have been in the possession of [the victim] before her death. . . . The evidence was concerning a physical fact, and tended to prove the guilt of [the possessor], and was considered in connection with all the other evidence in the case also tending to prove the guilt of [the defendant].”)

• Money, which was taken from the automobile owned and operated by the companion of the defendant charged with grand larceny, and from the companion and the defendant at time of their arrest, totaled only $6.34 less than the $1,975.00 stolen, coincided exactly in amount with number of bills of each denomination except for change, and was admissible against defendant.

See Mason v. State, 191 N.E.2d 705, 707 (Ind. 1963)(“At about 3:30 A.M. police stopped a car, owned and driven by Clifton Carter, in which [the defendant] was riding. . . . In the trunk of the car the police found two bundles of bills hidden, wrapped in handkerchiefs, one containing $827.00 and the other $1,083.00. [The defendant] had $26.59 on his person, and Carter had $32.07, making a total of $1,968.66, which was only $6.34 less than the amount stolen. . . . We conclude, therefore, that the evidence in this case, although circumstantial, was sufficient to create a strong inference that the money in the possession of [the defendant] and Carter was, in fact, the money stolen from [the victim's] automobile.”)

• In a prosecution for burglary, a sock found near the crime scene, which apparently was mate to one taken from the defendant, a package of money taken from the defendant’s person at the police station, and a packet of money retrieved from the sock found near the crime scene, were all admissible.

See Graddy v. State, 376 N.E.2d 506, 525 (Ind. Ct. App. 1978)(“Officer Davis testified that the sock appeared to be a mate to the one taken from [the defendant]; the sock was discovered near the scene; money . . . was found in the sock; [and] money … was found on [the defendant’s] person. We think the exhibits and the circumstances under which they were found permit reasonable inferences connecting [the defendant] with the conduct for which he was accused. We find no error in their admission.”)