Meredith v. State, No. 30660

Docket NºNo. 30660
Citation247 Ind. 233, 214 N.E.2d 385
Case DateMarch 04, 1966
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 385

214 N.E.2d 385
247 Ind. 233
Almon MEREDITH, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 30660.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
March 4, 1966.

[247 IND 234] Robert J. Fink, of Haymaker, Bridwell & Fink, Indianapolis, for appellant.

John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., James Manahan, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ARTERBURN, Judge.

The appellant was convicted in the Marion County Criminal Court, Division I on February 11, 1964 of the crime of second degree murder. Appellant assigns as error to overruling of a motion for a new trial and in appellant's brief states that he relies upon the introduction in evidence over his

Page 386

objections of exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 6 on the ground that they were 'irrelevant, immaterial and did not tend to prove any of the issues of the crime charged.' The brief does not identify these exhibits except by reference to a transcript page. It would have been helpful to have briefly described of what the exhibits consisted. We find, however, upon examination of the transcript and the testimony related thereto that the exhibits consist of four photographs. Two are pictures of a 1951 Buick automobile which had been wrecked following a pursuit by police officers, in which the appellant was riding at the time of an attempted escape. Another is a picture of appellant Meredith lying on the ground in a pool of blood as he was shot in an attempt to escape, and finally a picture of the automobile with the door open, showing what appears to be blood on the front seat and a revolver lying on the floor.

Error is further claimed, as stated in the brief, because of the introduction of testimony of police officers Graham and Stratton, 'their testimony not being connected to the crime charged and being irrelevant.' This is specification 28 of the motion for a new trial. It is a specification of error claimed in overruling defendant's motion to strike out [247 IND 235] 'the testimony of the last four or five witnesses as not being relevant.' Without belaboring the point, we state that this is not the proper way for trial counsel to save for review a question as to the admission of evidence in the trial. It is too indefinite and confusing. Schweigel v. State (1964), 245 Ind. 6, 195 N.E.2d 848.

From the brief written by subsequent counsel on appeal we draw the conclusion that the evidence complained of was that relating to the arrest and apprehension by these officers of the appellant on the crime of murder. Since the general tenor of appellant's brief is that this evidence and that of the pictures introduced as exhibits were not relevant and material in the trial of the appellant on the murder charge, we have given that issue consideration.

The evidence in this case shows that shortly prior to the apprehension and arrest of the appellant, from which these pictures result, the appellant had shot and killed the decedent, William Robert Bray, following a drinking party. One of the witnesses present called the police, describing the car which the appellant used in leaving the scene of the homicide. Shortly thereafter an Indianapolis police officer in a patrol car saw the automobile in which the appellant and a companion were riding, and directed them to pull over to the curb. After asking their names, the police officer arrested the appellant and the driver of the car. The appellant got out of the car and fired three shots at the police officer, critically wounding him. The appellant then jumped into the car and sped away down the street. Another police patrol wagon pursued, forcing the car in which the appellant was riding to crash into a fire plug. One exhibit objected to by the appellant was a picture of this car which crashed in the pursuit following appellant's attempted escape. In this car was found the revolver which was identified by laboratory tests as being the revolver which fired the bullet which killed William Robert Bray, the decedent. Another one of the exhibits to which objection is made was a picture of this revolver lying on the [247 IND 236] floor of the escape car. Another exhibit is a picture of the appellant after he was shot or injured following the crash of the fleeing car.

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. A statement in Underhill, Criminal Evidence, p. 213 (2d ed. 1910) is quoted with approval by this Court in Smith v. State (1961), 241 Ind. 665, 668, 175 N.E.2d 27, 29:

"Any statement or conduct of a person indicating a consciousness of

Page 387

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 practice notes
  • Tichnell v. State, Nos. 73
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 10 Junio 1980
    ...v. Peltier, 585 F.2d 314, 322-25 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 945, 99 S.Ct. 1422, 59 L.Ed.2d 634 (1979); Meredith v. State, 247 Ind. 233, 214 N.E.2d 385, 386-87 (1966); State v. Davies, 350 So.2d 586, 588-89 (La.1977); Commonwealth v. Gilday, 367 Mass. 474, 327 N.E.2d 851, 864 (1......
  • Spinks v. McBride, No. 3:93cv0542 AS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • 29 Junio 1994
    ...this is not a sufficient basis for excluding such evidence. Sotelo v. State (1976), 264 Ind. 298, 342 N.E.2d 844; Meredith v. State (1966) 247 Ind. 233, 214 N.E.2d 385." Wilson v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 112, 374 N.E.2d The photograph served to clarify testimony concerning the cause of death......
  • Fleenor v. State, No. 1184
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 13 Octubre 1987
    ...is not a sufficient basis for excluding such evidence. Sotelo v. State (1976), 264 Ind. 298, 342 N.E.2d 844; Meredith v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 233, 214 N.E.2d Wilson v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 112, 374 N.E.2d 45, 48. The photographs were relevant because they were illustrative of verbal tes......
  • Short v. State, No. 381S86
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 27 Diciembre 1982
    ...is relevant and admissible as circumstantial evidence of guilt. Porter v. State, (1979) Ind., 391 N.E.2d 801; Meredith v. State, (1966) 247 Ind. 233, 214 N.E.2d 385. There was no error in permitting the testimony of the Appellant claims the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence fr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
32 cases
  • Tichnell v. State, Nos. 73
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 10 Junio 1980
    ...v. Peltier, 585 F.2d 314, 322-25 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 945, 99 S.Ct. 1422, 59 L.Ed.2d 634 (1979); Meredith v. State, 247 Ind. 233, 214 N.E.2d 385, 386-87 (1966); State v. Davies, 350 So.2d 586, 588-89 (La.1977); Commonwealth v. Gilday, 367 Mass. 474, 327 N.E.2d 851, 864 (1......
  • Spinks v. McBride, No. 3:93cv0542 AS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • 29 Junio 1994
    ...this is not a sufficient basis for excluding such evidence. Sotelo v. State (1976), 264 Ind. 298, 342 N.E.2d 844; Meredith v. State (1966) 247 Ind. 233, 214 N.E.2d 385." Wilson v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 112, 374 N.E.2d The photograph served to clarify testimony concerning the cause of death......
  • Fleenor v. State, No. 1184
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 13 Octubre 1987
    ...is not a sufficient basis for excluding such evidence. Sotelo v. State (1976), 264 Ind. 298, 342 N.E.2d 844; Meredith v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 233, 214 N.E.2d Wilson v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 112, 374 N.E.2d 45, 48. The photographs were relevant because they were illustrative of verbal tes......
  • Short v. State, No. 381S86
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 27 Diciembre 1982
    ...is relevant and admissible as circumstantial evidence of guilt. Porter v. State, (1979) Ind., 391 N.E.2d 801; Meredith v. State, (1966) 247 Ind. 233, 214 N.E.2d 385. There was no error in permitting the testimony of the Appellant claims the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence fr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT