Inferences
Definitions
• [An inference is] [a] conclusion reached by considering other facts and deducing a logical consequence from them.
Black’s Law Dictionary 536 (9th ed. 2009)
• [Inference is also] [t]he process by which such a conclusion is reached; the process of thought by which one moves from evidence to proof.
Black’s Law Dictionary 536 (9th ed. 2009)
Interpretation
• An inference is the permissible deduction the trier of facts may reasonably draw from other established facts.
Lewis by Lewis v. Bonahoom, 583 N.E.2d 175, 178 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991)(citing Magazine v. Shull, 60 N.E.2d 611, 613 (Ind. Ct. App. 1945), trans. denied)
• “An inference is a process of reasoning by which a fact or proposition sought to be established is deducted as a logical consequence from other facts, or a state of facts[,] already proved or admitted.”
Jaunese v. State, 701 N.E.2d 1282, 1284 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)(quoting Lewis v. State, 535 N.E.2d 556, 559 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989))
Requirements for validity
• “[A]n inference cannot arise or stand by itself. There must first be a fact established from which an inference arises.”
Reed v. State, 387 N.E.2d 82, 84 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979)(quoting Palace Bar, Inc. v. Fearnot, 381 N.E.2d 858, 861 (Ind. 1978))
• An inference, to be valid, must be logical. It must follow as an impelling certainty from the . . . evidence which mothers it, or it is not proper.
Miller v. State, 236 N.E.2d 173, 176 (Ind. 1968)(citing Hudson v. State, 139 N.E.2d 917, 919 (Ind. 1957))
• The party with the burden of proof may, in some instances, rely on inferences in the absence of direct evidence. However, those inferences must be reasonable.
Sapp v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 12 N.E.3d 913, 922 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied(emphasis added)
• The reasonableness of an inference is determined by whether the inferred fact is a probable hypothesis from the proven facts and circumstances in light of common knowledge and experience.
Fowler v. Campbell, 612 N.E.2d 596, 602 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993)(citing Puckett v. McKinney, 373 N.E.2d 909, 912 (Ind. Ct. App. 1978))
• An unreasonable inference yields an arbitrary or capricious result based on speculation, guess, surmise, conjecture or mere possibility.
Fowler v. Campbell, 612 N.E.2d 596, 602 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993)(citing Puckett v. McKinney, 373 N.E.2d 909, 912 (Ind. Ct. App. 1978))
See State St. Duffy’s, Inc. v. Loyd, 623 N.E.2d 1099, 1101 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993), trans. denied(citing Midwest Commerce Banking Co. v. Livings, 608 N.E.2d 1010, 1012 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993))(“An inference is not reasonable when it rests on mere speculation or conjecture.”)
See also Kincade v. MAC Corp., 773 N.E.2d 909, 911 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)(citing Hayden v. Paragon Steakhouse, 731 N.E.2d 456, 458 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000))(“An inference is not reasonable when it rests on no more than speculation or conjecture.”)
Permissible sources of inferences
• [T]he trier of fact may draw reasonable inferences from direct or circumstantial evidence.
Mitchell v. State, 557 N.E.2d 660, 662 (Ind. 1990)(citing Jones v. State, 523 N.E.2d 750, 752 (Ind. 1988), abrogated on other grounds by Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32, 50 (Ind. 1999))
See Germaine v. State, 718 N.E.2d 1125, 1132 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)(citing Jones v. State, 523 N.E.2d 750, 752 (Ind. 1988), abrogated on other grounds by Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32, 50 (Ind. 1999))(“The jury may draw reasonable inferences from both direct and circumstantial evidence.”)
• For more information on the differences between direct and circumstantial evidence, please visit In General.
Drawing inferences from other inferences
• With regard to the contention that … an inference cannot be built upon another inference, our supreme court has concluded with Professor Wigmore that: “There is no such rule; nor can there be.”
Sutton v. State, 571 N.E.2d 1299, 1303 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991)(citing Orey v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 19 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1939))
See Orey v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 19 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1939)(citing Wigmore on Evidence, 2d Ed., Vol. 1, § 41, pp. 258, 259)(“The appellee contends that …an inference cannot be built upon another inference. It has often been said that there is a rule of law to that effect, but the statements are so interspersed with recognition of exceptions that we must conclude with Professor Wigmore that: ‘There is no such rule; nor can be.’”)
• What is actually meant by the statement found in many cases, that an inference cannot be based upon an inference, is that an inference cannot be based upon evidence which is uncertain or speculative or which raises merely a conjecture or possibility.
Sutton v. State, 571 N.E.2d 1299, 1303 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991)(citing Shutt v. State, 117 N.E.2d 892, 894 (Ind. 1954))
See Seketa v. State, 817 N.E.2d 690, 696 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)(citing Neville v. State, 802 N.E.2d 516, 518 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied)(“An inference cannot be based on evidence that is uncertain or speculative or which raises merely a conjecture or possibility.”)