Sec. 2. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally
exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent
to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits
theft, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is:
(1) a Level 6 felony if:
(A) the value of the property is at least seven hundred fifty
dollars ($750) and less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000);
(B) the property is a:
(i) motor vehicle (as defined in IC 9-13-2-105(a)); or
(ii) component part (as defined in IC 9-13-2-34) of a motor
vehicle; or
(C) the person has a prior unrelated conviction for:
(i) theft under this section;
(ii) criminal conversion under section 3 of this chapter;
(iii) robbery under IC 35-42-5-1; or
(iv) burglary under IC 35-43-2-1;
(2) a Level 5 felony if:
(A) the value of the property is at least fifty thousand dollars
($50,000);
(B) the property that is the subject of the theft is a valuable
metal (as defined in IC 25-37.5-1-1) and:
(i) relates to transportation safety;
(ii) relates to public safety; or
(iii) is taken from a hospital or other health care facility,
telecommunications provider, public utility (as defined in IC 32-24-1-5.9(a)), or critical infrastructure facility;
and the absence of the property creates a substantial risk of
bodily injury to a person; or
(C) the property is a:
(i) motor vehicle (as defined in IC 9-13-2-105(a)); or
(ii) component part (as defined in IC 9-13-2-34) of a motor
vehicle; and
the person has a prior unrelated conviction for theft of a motor
vehicle (as defined in IC 9-13-2-105(a)) or theft of a component
part (as defined in IC 9-13-2-34); and
(3) a Level 5 felony if the property is a firearm.
(b) For purposes of this section, "the value of property" means:
(1) the fair market value of the property at the time and place the
offense was committed; or
(2) if the fair market value of the property cannot be satisfactorily
determined, the cost to replace the property within a reasonable
time after the offense was committed.
A price tag or price marking on property displayed or offered for sale
constitutes prima facie evidence of the value of the property.
(c) If the offense described in subsection (a) is committed by a
public servant who exerted unauthorized control over public funds (as
defined by IC 5-22-2-23) from the public servant's employer, the
employer may be reimbursed in accordance with IC 2-3.5-4-11, IC 2-3.5-5-9, IC 5-10-5.5-19, IC 5-10.3-8-9, IC 5-10.4-5-14, IC 10-12-2-10, IC 33-38-6-19.5, IC 33-39-7-10.5, IC 36-8-6-14, IC 36-8-7-22, IC 36-8-7.5-19, or IC 36-8-8-17.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.3. Amended by Acts
1977, P.L.340, SEC.45; Acts 1979, P.L.300, SEC.2; P.L.320-1985,
SEC.1; P.L.158-2009, SEC.8; P.L.158-2013, SEC.463; P.L.152-2014,
SEC.1; P.L.166-2017, SEC.2; P.L.176-2018, SEC.6; P.L.203-2019,
SEC.6; P.L.211-2019, SEC.46; P.L.276-2019, SEC.6; P.L.70-2021,
SEC.3; P.L.175-2022, SEC.7.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
857
cases (
26 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case:
Gibson v. State, 643 N.E.2d 885 (Ind. 1994).
Gibson v. State, 643 N.E.2d 885 (Ind. 1994).
· cites it 26× “" Ind. Code Ann. § 35-43-4-2 (b) (Burns 1985).”
Bennett v. State, 871 N.E.2d 316 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 24× “Ind.Code § 35-43-4-2 (Burns 1983 Cum.Supp.”
Kimberly Heaton v. State of Indiana, 984 N.E.2d 614 (Ind. 2013).
· cites it 4× “While serving her probation term, the defendant was arrested and charged with Theft as a Class D felony, Ind.Code § 35-43-4-2(a). The State filed a Notice of Violation of Probation alleging five violations of probation conditions.”
Beaty v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 13× “In any event, because Beaty was able to present some evidence of Hohler's misconduct, as well as evidence pertaining to Hohler's plea agreement thereby establishing Hohler's possible bias, I concur in the result reached by the majority in affirming Beaty's convictions.”
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003).
· cites it 2× “Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2 (a) (1993); § 35-50-2-7(a).”
Baker v. State, 968 N.E.2d 227 (Ind. 2012).
· cites it 4× “Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2 (a) (“A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft, a Class D felony.”
Hayworth v. State, 798 N.E.2d 503 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 15× “STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant-Defendant, Frenshell Hayworth (Hayworth), appeals her convictions for Counts II and V, theft, Class D felonies, Ind.Code § 35-43-4-2. We affirm. ISSUE Hayworth raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as follows: whether the evidence presented…”
United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019).
“, Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2 (a)(2)(B) (2018) ("substantial risk of bodily injury"); Minn.”
Falk Eng'g & Surveying, Inc. v. Luedtke (In Re Luedtke), 429 B.R. 241 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2010).
· cites it 20× “1994) (held, “We recognize that in providing the State the flexibility to proceed under either subsection of Indiana Code § 35-43-4-2, the potential for multiple prosecutions arises.”
Lawrence Gyamfi v. State of Indiana, 15 N.E.3d 1131 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 8× “ISSUE Gyamfi raises three issues, one of which we find dispositive and which we restate as: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting certain evidence which was derivative of evidence obtained during an unlawful search and seizure.”
S.G. v. State, 956 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 14× “See Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2 (b). In addition and without inquiring into S.”
— Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(2) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(2014) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(A) — 2 cases
— Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a) — 170 cases
Lawrence Gyamfi v. State of Indiana, 15 N.E.3d 1131 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
“ISSUE Gyamfi raises three issues, one of which we find dispositive and which we restate as: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting certain evidence which was derivative of evidence obtained during an unlawful search and seizure.”
Kimberly Heaton v. State of Indiana, 984 N.E.2d 614 (Ind. 2013).
“While serving her probation term, the defendant was arrested and charged with Theft as a Class D felony, Ind.Code § 35-43-4-2(a). The State filed a Notice of Violation of Probation alleging five violations of probation conditions.”
Baker v. State, 968 N.E.2d 227 (Ind. 2012).
“Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2 (a) (“A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft, a Class D felony.”
Hayworth v. State, 798 N.E.2d 503 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
“STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant-Defendant, Frenshell Hayworth (Hayworth), appeals her convictions for Counts II and V, theft, Class D felonies, Ind.Code § 35-43-4-2. We affirm. ISSUE Hayworth raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as follows: whether the evidence presented…”
— Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a)(1) — 9 cases
— Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a)(1)(A) — 4 cases
— Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a)(1)(B) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a)(1)(B)(i) — 2 cases
— Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a)(1)(B)(ii) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a)(1)(C) — 3 cases
— Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a)(1)(C)(i) — 2 cases
— Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a)(1)(c) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a)(2)(A) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a)(2013) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(b) — 44 cases
S.G. v. State, 956 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
“See Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2 (b). In addition and without inquiring into S.”
Kimberly Heaton v. State of Indiana, 984 N.E.2d 614 (Ind. 2013).
“While serving her probation term, the defendant was arrested and charged with Theft as a Class D felony, Ind.Code § 35-43-4-2(a). The State filed a Notice of Violation of Probation alleging five violations of probation conditions.”
Gibson v. State, 643 N.E.2d 885 (Ind. 1994).
“" Ind. Code Ann. § 35-43-4-2 (b) (Burns 1985).”
Beaty v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
“In any event, because Beaty was able to present some evidence of Hohler's misconduct, as well as evidence pertaining to Hohler's plea agreement thereby establishing Hohler's possible bias, I concur in the result reached by the majority in affirming Beaty's convictions.”
— Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(b)(1) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.