In general
• [E]vidence that an accused tried to avoid arrest is relevant and admissible as circumstantial evidence of guilt.
Connell v. State, 470 N.E.2d 701, 705 (Ind. 1984)(citing Short v. State, 443 N.E.2d 298, 308 (Ind. 1984))
See Wilson v. State, 455 N.E.2d 1120, 1123 (Ind. 1983)(citing Williamson v. State, 436 N.E.2d 90, 94 (Ind. 1982))(“Evidence of an attempt to avoid arrest tends to show guilt.”)
See also Boles v. State, 322 N.E.2d 722, 724 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975)(“That flight or avoidance of arrest is admissible as evidence of guilty knowledge cannot be doubted.”)
See also Miller v. State, 285 N.E.2d 843, 848 (Ind. Ct. App. 1972), reh’g denied(citing Thomas v. State, 261 N.E.2d 224, 225 (Ind. 1970), reh’g denied)(“[E]vidence of escape or attempted avoidance of arrest is competent circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt.”)
See also Walker v. State, 238 N.E.2d 466, 469 (Ind. 1968)(quoting Meredith v. State, 214 N.E.2d 385, 387 (Ind. 1966))(“‘Evidence of escape or attempted escape and avoidance of arrest or capture is always competent evidence of the consciousness of guilt and a matter for the consideration of the jury.’”)
• The accused's armed resistance to arrest is evidence of guilt, though not necessarily guilt of the crime charged.
Martin v. State, 141 N.E.2d 107, 109 (Ind. 1957), reh’g denied cert. denied, 354 U.S. 927 (1957)(emphasis added)
• For information about flight as circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt, please review Flight.
Example
• [E]vidence of [the defendant’s] flight from the police officers during the auto chase in order to avoid arrest is circumstantial evidence of guilt.
Murphy v. State, 475 N.E.2d 42, 51 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985), reh’g denied, trans. denied
Effect on admissibility of a delay in serving the arrest warrant
• The two-week time span between the issuance of the warrant and its service did not render evidence of [the defendant’s] resistance inadmissible.