reasonable theory of innocence instruction in Indiana

2019Abd alleges that the trial court erred when it did not include a reasonable theory of innocence instruction as mandated by our Supreme Court in Hampton v. State , 961 N.E.2d 480 , 486 (Ind. 2012) ; see also Hawkins v. State , 100 N.E.3d 313 , 316 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). [24] In Hampton , our Supreme Court discussed at length why trial courts must include this jury instruction in particular circumstances: [B]ecause Indiana jurisprudence recognizes the importance of such an instruction in certain cases involving circumstantial evidence but our case law reveals a reluctance to find reversible error

2019If the trial court makes that determination, it is then required to provide this reasonable theory of innocence instruction so that the jury exercises "particular caution when considering whether to find guilt based solely on crucial circumstantial evidence[.]" Id. at 490 . [25] Here, because Abd did not request this jury instruction, the trial court was never called upon to consider whether the evidence used to show criminal conduct under either the robbery or murder statutes was exclusively circumstantial.

2019The supreme court concluded as follows: [B]ecause Indiana jurisprudence recognizes the importance of [a reasonable theory of innocence] instruction in certain cases involving circumstantial evidence but our case law reveals a reluctance to find reversible error for failure to give the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2599| July 31, 2019 Page 24 of 26 instruction if there is substantial direct evidence of guilt, we elect to apply the approach taken in [Spears v. State, 272 Ind. 634 , 639- 40, 401 N.E.2d 331, 335 (1980)] and direct that the “reasonable theory of innocence

2014See 961 N.E.2d at 487-88 , 490-91 (quoting Spears v. State, 272 Ind. 634 , 401 N.E.2d 331, 335 (1980)) (“To hold otherwise would require a circumstantial evidence instruction in every case involving a crime containing the element of intent.

2019Therefore, the trial court was required to give the jury the reasonable theory of innocence instruction,7 the substance of which was not covered by the other instructions 6 In arguing that the reasonable theory of innocence language may only be given in the reasonable doubt instruction, State’s Br. at 15 n.3, the State apparently misreads footnote 6 of the Hawkins decision, which states: “We note that the reasonable theory of innocence instruction could be placed in the instruction on direct and circumstantial evidence, as Hawkins requested, or in the reasonable doubt instruction, as the India

2019Abd alleges that the trial court erred when it did not include a reasonable theory of innocence instruction as mandated by our Supreme Court in Hampton v. State , 961 N.E.2d 480 , 486 (Ind. 2012) ; see also Hawkins v. State , 100 N.E.3d 313 , 316 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). [24] In Hampton , our Supreme Court discussed at length why trial courts must include this jury instruction in particular circumstances: [B]ecause Indiana jurisprudence recognizes the importance of such an instruction in certain cases involving circumstantial evidence but our case law reveals a reluctance to find reversible error

2019The supreme court concluded as follows: [B]ecause Indiana jurisprudence recognizes the importance of [a reasonable theory of innocence] instruction in certain cases involving circumstantial evidence but our case law reveals a reluctance to find reversible error for failure to give the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2599| July 31, 2019 Page 24 of 26 instruction if there is substantial direct evidence of guilt, we elect to apply the approach taken in [Spears v. State, 272 Ind. 634 , 639- 40, 401 N.E.2d 331, 335 (1980)] and direct that the “reasonable theory of innocence

2014See 961 N.E.2d at 487-88 , 490-91 (quoting Spears v. State, 272 Ind. 634 , 401 N.E.2d 331, 335 (1980)) (“To hold otherwise would require a circumstantial evidence instruction in every case involving a crime containing the element of intent.

2019Hampton, 961 N.E2d 480, 491 (Ind. 2012); see also Harper v. State, 963 N.E.2d 653, 661-662 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (holding that a reasonable theory of innocence instruction was not required where there was direct evidence of the defendant’s possession in a vehicle and hotel room where contraband was located).