In General

In general

In general

• Any statement or conduct of a person indicating a consciousness of guilt, where at the time or thereafter he is charged with or suspected of the crime, is admissible as a circumstance against him on trial. Evidence of circumstances, which are part of a person's behavior subsequent to an event with which it is alleged or suspected he is connected with or implicated in, are relevant if the circumstances are such as would be natural and usual, assuming the connection or implication to exist.

Davidson v. State, 187 N.E. 376, 378 (Ind. 1933)(citing Underhill, Criminal Evidence (2d Ed.) 213)

Smith v. State, 175 N.E.2d 27, 29 (Ind. 1961)(quoting Davidson v. State, 187 N.E. 376, 378 (Ind. 1933))

• In general, the prosecution is not permitted to introduce evidence of a defendant's exercise of his constitutional rights in order to impeach the defendant or invite the jury to infer the defendant's guilt from the exercise of those rights.

Jewell v. State, 672 N.E.2d 417, 423-24 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied(citing Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 618 (1976))

Peterson v. State, 699 N.E.2d 701, 705 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)(citing Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 618 (1976))

Shelton v. State, 679 N.E.2d 499, 503 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)(citing Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 618 (1976))

See McCoy v. State, 574 N.E.2d 304, 306-07 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991)(“[T]he prosecution cannot introduce evidence of a defendant's exercise of his constitutional rights in order to impeach the defendant or invite the jury to infer the defendant's guilt from the exercise of those rights.”)