Sec. 5. (a) An owner in possession of encumbered
property does not commit a crime under this chapter, as against a
person having only a security interest in the property, by removing or
otherwise dealing with the property contrary to the terms of the security
agreement, even if title is in the credit institution under a mortgage,
conditional sales contract, or bailment lease.
(b) It is a defense under this chapter if a maker or drawer:
(1) who has an account in a credit institution but does not have
sufficient funds in that account; and
(2) who makes, draws, or utters a check, draft, or order for
payment on the credit institution;
pays the credit institution the amount due, together with protest fees,
within ten (10) days after receiving notice that the check, draft, or order
has not been paid by the credit institution. Notice sent to either (i) the
address printed or written on the check, draft, or order or (ii) the
address given in writing to the recipient at the time the check, draft, or
order was issued or delivered constitutes notice that the check, draft, or
order has not been paid by the credit institution.
(c) A person who transfers or reproduces recorded sounds in
connection with a broadcast or telecast, or for archival purposes, does
not commit a crime under this chapter, even if he does not have the
consent of the owner of the master recording.
(d) A person who receives, retains, or disposes of personal property
that has been the subject of theft with the purpose of restoring it to the
owner, does not commit a crime under this chapter.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.3. Amended by Acts
1977, P.L.340, SEC.48; Acts 1979, P.L.300, SEC.3; P.L.323-1985,
SEC.1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 1991–2018 · leading case:
S.G. v. State, 956 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
S.G. v. State, 956 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “” Ind.Code § 35-43-4-5(d). By enacting this statute, the legislature made clear its intent to recognize only one defense to a finding that a defendant knowingly disposed of stolen property — that the actions taken by the accused were performed “with the purpose of restoring [the…”
Surplus Store & Exch., Inc. v. City of Delphi, 928 F.2d 788 (7th Cir. 1991).
“Ind.Code § 35-43-4-5(d). None of these statutes provide for a judicial hearing or other proceeding before the subject property is returned to its owner.”
SG v. State, 956 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “" Ind.Code § 35-43-4-5(d). By enacting this statute, the legislature made clear its intent to recognize only one defense to a finding that a defendant knowingly disposed of stolen propertythat the actions taken by the accused were performed " with the purpose of restoring [the…”
Thomas A. Dexter v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Ind. Code § 35-43-4-5 (b) (1985). In this case, Dexter points out that at the guilty plea hearing he denied knowing that the checks would not clear the bank when he wrote them at Meijer, concluding that the State therefore failed to establish a factual basis as to all elements…”
Ind. Code § 35-43-4-5(d): 3 cases
S.G. v. State, 956 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
“” Ind.Code § 35-43-4-5(d). By enacting this statute, the legislature made clear its intent to recognize only one defense to a finding that a defendant knowingly disposed of stolen property — that the actions taken by the accused were performed “with the purpose of restoring [the…”
Surplus Store & Exch., Inc. v. City of Delphi, 928 F.2d 788 (7th Cir. 1991).
“Ind.Code § 35-43-4-5(d). None of these statutes provide for a judicial hearing or other proceeding before the subject property is returned to its owner.”
SG v. State, 956 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
“" Ind.Code § 35-43-4-5(d). By enacting this statute, the legislature made clear its intent to recognize only one defense to a finding that a defendant knowingly disposed of stolen propertythat the actions taken by the accused were performed " with the purpose of restoring [the…”
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.