Insufficiency of mere presence
• Mere presence at the crime scene with the opportunity to commit a crime is not a sufficient basis on which to support a conviction.
Pratt v. State, 744 N.E.2d 434, 436 (Ind. 2001)(citing Roop v. State, 730 N.E.2d 1267, 1271 (Ind. 2000))
See Hampton v. State, 719 N.E.2d 803, 807 (Ind. 1999)(“Presence at the crime scene alone cannot sustain a conviction . . . .”)
See also Henderson v. State, 534 N.E.2d 1105, 1109 (Ind. 1989)(citing Harrison v. State, 496 N.E.2d 49, 52 (Ind. 1986))(“[M]ere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient in and of itself to establish guilt . . . .”)
See also Wilson v. State, 455 N.E.2d 1120, 1122 (Ind. 1983)(citing Janigon v. State, 429 N.E.2d 959, 960-61 (Ind. 1982)))(“[P]roof of presence at the scene of a crime, without more, cannot serve as evidence to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.”)
See also Kriner v. State, 699 N.E.2d 659, 664 (Ind. 1998)(citing Menefee v. State, 514 N.E.2d 1057, 1059 (Ind. 1987))(“[The defendant] is correct that mere presence at or near the scene of the crime is insufficient to prove his involvement . . . .”)
• An accused's mere presence at the scene of the crime is insufficient to establish that he aided another person to commit an offense.
Peterson v. State, 699 N.E.2d 701, 706 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)(citing Byrer v. State, 423 N.E.2d 704, 706 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981))
See Bond v. State, 272 N.E.2d 460, 463 (Ind. 1971)(citing Guetling v. State, 153 N.E. 765, 767 (Ind. 1926))(“[M]ere presence at the scene of a crime without any evidence of participation therein is not sufficient to make one an accomplice.”)
Circumstantial evidence of guilt
• Even though one's mere presence at the crime scene with the opportunity to commit a crime is not a sufficient basis on which to support a conviction, one's presence at the scene in connection with other circumstances tending to show one's participation may raise a reasonable inference of guilt.
Klaff v. State, 884 N.E.2d 272, 275 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)(citing Brink v. State, 837 N.E.2d 192, 194 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied)
Interpretation of “other circumstances tending to show one’s participation”
• [P]resence at the scene in connection with other circumstances tending to show participation, such as companionship with the one engaged in the crime, and the course of conduct of the defendant before, during, and after the offense, may raise a reasonable inference of guilt.
Brink v. State, 837 N.E.2d 192, 194 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied(citing Pratt v. State, 744 N.E.2d 434, 436 (Ind. 2001))(emphasis added)
Oldham v. State, 779 N.E.2d 1162, 1169 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied(citing Hampton v. State, 719 N.E.2d 803, 807 (Ind. 1999))(“[P]resence at the scene in connection with other circumstances, such as companionship with the one engaged in the crime, and the course of conduct of the defendant before, during, and after the offense, may raise a reasonable inference of guilt.”)
Maul v. State, 731 N.E.2d 438, 439 (Ind. 2000)(citing Hampton v. State, 719 N.E.2d 803, 807 (Ind. 1999))(“[P]resence when combined with other facts and circumstances, such as companionship with the one engaged in the crime, and the course of conduct of the defendant before, during, and after the offense, may raise a reasonable inference of guilt.”)
Cf. Wright v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1098, 1106 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied(citing Harris v. State, 617 N.E.2d 912, 915 (Ind. 1993), reh’g denied)(“[P]resence at the scene, together with evidence as to defendant's conduct before, during and after the crimes which tends to show complicity, can support an inference of participation in the crimes.”)