Sec. 3. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally
exerts unauthorized control over property of another person commits
criminal conversion, a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) The offense under subsection (a) is a Level 6 felony if
committed by a person who exerts unauthorized control over the motor
vehicle of another person with the intent to use the motor vehicle to
assist the person in the commission of a crime.
(c) The offense under subsection (a) is a Level 5 felony if:
(1) committed by a person who exerts unauthorized control over
the motor vehicle of another person; and
(2) the person uses the motor vehicle to assist the person in the
commission of a felony.
(d) The offense under subsection (a) is a Level 6 felony if:
(1) the person acquires the property by lease;
(2) the property is a motor vehicle;
(3) the person signs a written agreement to return the property to
a specified location within a specified time; and
(4) the person fails to return the property:
(A) within thirty (30) days after the specified time; or
(B) within three (3) days after a written demand for return of
the property is either:
(i) personally served on the person; or
(ii) sent by registered mail to the person's address that is
provided by the person in the written agreement.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.3. Amended by Acts
1977, P.L.340, SEC.46; P.L.143-2005, SEC.2; P.L.227-2011, SEC.1;
P.L.158-2013, SEC.467.
Notes of Decisions
Infinity Prods., Inc. v. Quandt, 810 N.E.2d 1028 (Ind. 2004).
· cites it 8× “See Ind.Code Ann. § 35-43-4-3 (West 1998). Infinity fails to make a cogent argument in support of this contention.”
Inlow v. Inlow, 797 N.E.2d 810 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 12× “The Complaint charged Anita with Count I, unjust enrichment; Count II, conversion pursuant to Ind.Code § 35-43-4-3; and Count III, conversion pursuant to I.”
Conwell v. Gray Loon Outdoor Mktg. Grp., Inc., 906 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. 2009).
· cites it 6× “" Ind.Code § 35-43-4-3 (2008). The action that POA argues constitutes conversion amounts to Gray Loon's "destruction" of the paid-for website.”
Dill v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. 2001).
· cites it 3× “CODE § 35-43-4-3. [3] Although not addressing the issue of confusion, prior cases have rejected claims that a flight instruction invaded the province of the jury "when it tells the jurors that flight of the accused is a circumstance which may be considered, and from which they…”
Bennett v. State, 871 N.E.2d 316 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 8× “1987) (holding that "[t]he element of theft not found in the criminal conversion statute is `with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its use or value'") (citing Ind.Code Ann. § 35-43-4-3 (Burns 1985) and Ind.”
Wright v. State, 658 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 35-43-4-3 (1993). Thus, when the Compton court said that the trial court properly refused the requested instruction on Criminal Conversion because of the way the State had drafted the information, it said that the State may foreclose an instruction on an inherently…”
Shouse v. State, 849 N.E.2d 650 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “5 with Ind.Code § 35-43-4-3. Our review of the evidence shows that there is no serious evidentiary dispute on this point.”
JET Credit Union v. Loudermilk, 879 N.E.2d 594 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “Ind.Code § 35-43-4-3. A person who has suffered a pecuniary loss as a result of a criminal conversion may bring a civil action to recover the loss.”
Meridian Fin. Advisors, Ltd. v. Pence, 763 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (S.D. Ind. 2011).
· cites it 4× “]” Ind.Code § 35-43-4-3 (2010). Unlike with criminal conversion, mens rea is not an element of tortious conversion.”
Nationscredit Com. Corp. v. Grauel Enter., Inc., 703 N.E.2d 1072 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 6× “” Ind.Code § 35-43-4-3. A party who proves criminal conversion by a preponderance of the evidence may recover damages in an amount not to exceed three times actual damages, costs of the action and reasonable attorney’s fees.”
Decatur Ventures, LLC v. Stapleton Ventures, Inc., 373 F. Supp. 2d 829 (S.D. Ind. 2005).
· cites it 4× “Although not cited in their amended complaint, it appears that Plaintiffs are bringing this claim^ pursuant to Indiana Code § 35-43-4-3. . IJnder that statutory provision, “[a] person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person…”
Ind. Code § 35-43-4-3(a): 31 cases
Bennett v. State, 871 N.E.2d 316 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
“1987) (holding that "[t]he element of theft not found in the criminal conversion statute is `with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its use or value'") (citing Ind.Code Ann. § 35-43-4-3 (Burns 1985) and Ind.”
Ind. Code § 35-43-4-3(b): 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.