Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2 (2026)

Counterfeiting; forgery

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 2. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally:

(1) makes or utters a written instrument in such a manner that it purports to have been made:

(A) by another person;

(B) at another time;

(D) by authority of one who did not give authority; or

(2) possesses more than one (1) written instrument knowing that the written instruments were made in a manner that they purport to have been made:

(A) by another person;

(B) at another time;

(D) by authority of one who did not give authority;

commits counterfeiting, a Level 6 felony.

(b) A person who, with intent to defraud, makes, utters, or possesses a written instrument in such a manner that it purports to have been made:

(1) by another person;

(2) at another time;

(3) with different provisions; or

(4) by authority of one who did not give authority;

commits forgery, a Level 6 felony.

As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.3. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.50; P.L.45-2005, SEC.2; P.L.106-2006, SEC.3; P.L.158-2013, SEC.469; P.L.197-2015, SEC.21; P.L.174-2021, SEC.44.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 163 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Bocanegra v. State, 969 N.E.2d 1026 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bocanegra v. State, 969 N.E.2d 1026 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 40× “Ind.Code § 35-43-5-2. Proof of intent to defraud requires a showing the defendant demonstrated "intent to deceive and thereby work a reliance and injury.”

Benefield v. State, 904 N.E.2d 239 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 14× “" Ind.Code § 35-43-5-2 provides: "A person who, with intent to defraud, makes, utters, or possesses a written instrument in such a manner that it purports to have been made: (1) by another person; (2) at another time; (3) with different provisions; or (4) by authority of one who…”

Benefield v. State, 945 N.E.2d 791 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “” Ind.Code § 35-43-5-2(b). A merely reckless state of mind is simply not compatible with a specific intent to defraud.”

Lohmiller v. State, 884 N.E.2d 903 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “4 To convict Lohmiller of forgery, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knowingly or intentionally made or uttered a written instrument in such a manner that it purports to have been made by authority of one who did not give authority.”

Wendell Brown a/k/a Menes Ankh El v. State of Indiana, 64 N.E.3d 1219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “Code § 35-43-2-1 (2011); forgery, a Class C felony, I.C. § 35-43-5-2(b) (2011); and driving while suspended, a Class A misdemeanor, I.”

Whitacre v. State, 412 N.E.2d 1202 (Ind. 1980). · cites it 6× “The defendant, Jeffery Allen Whitacre, was convicted of forgery, a class C felony, Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2 (Burns 1979 Repl.) and was found to be an habitual offender, Ind.”

Lawrence Gyamfi v. State of Indiana, 15 N.E.3d 1131 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “On November 29, 2012, the State filed a request to amend the charging Information by adding Count III, forgery, a Class C felony, I.C. § 35-43-5-2(b)(1), which was subsequently approved by the trial court.”

Williams v. State, 892 N.E.2d 666 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “” Ind.Code § 35-43-5-2(b) (2006). And to prove that she committed attempted theft, as a Class D felony, the State was required to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams “knowingly or intentionally” “engaged in conduct that constitute])!] a substantial step toward”…”

An-Hung Yao & Yu-Ting Lin v. State of Indiana, 975 N.E.2d 1273 (Ind. 2012). · cites it 4× “See I.C. § 35-43-5-2(a). For purposes of the Indiana counterfeiting statute, “written instrument” is defined as follows: “Written instrument” means a paper, a document, or other instrument contain *1279 ing written matter and includes money, coins, tokens, stamps, seals, credit…”

Flaherty & Collins, Inc. v. BBR-Vision I, L.P., & New Castle Realty, LLC, 990 N.E.2d 958 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6× “The trial court found that “the undisputed evidence establishes that F & C’s conduct violate[d] Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2 (forgery and counterfeiting); I.”

Jacobs v. State, 640 N.E.2d 61 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 6× “Jacobs was subsequently arrested and charged with three counts of forgery under Ind.Code § 35-43-5-2, all as Class C felonies.”

Kindred v. State, 524 N.E.2d 279 (Ind. 1988). · cites it 4× “Code § 35-44-2-1) and two counts of forgery (uttering), a class C felony, ( Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2 ). The jury acquitted the defendant of the charge of habitual offender.”

Show all 163 citing cases →

— Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2(1) — 3 cases

Hayden v. State, 771 N.E.2d 100 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

Kemp v. State, 887 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

Stroup v. State, 810 N.E.2d 355 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

— Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2(3) — 1 case

McDonald v. State, 775 N.E.2d 1195 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

— Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2(4) — 1 case

Hamilton v. State, 864 N.E.2d 1104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

— Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2(a) — 5 cases

Bocanegra v. State, 969 N.E.2d 1026 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Ind.Code § 35-43-5-2. Proof of intent to defraud requires a showing the defendant demonstrated "intent to deceive and thereby work a reliance and injury.”

An-Hung Yao & Yu-Ting Lin v. State of Indiana, 975 N.E.2d 1273 (Ind. 2012). “See I.C. § 35-43-5-2(a). For purposes of the Indiana counterfeiting statute, “written instrument” is defined as follows: “Written instrument” means a paper, a document, or other instrument contain *1279 ing written matter and includes money, coins, tokens, stamps, seals, credit…”

Flaherty & Collins, Inc. v. BBR-Vision I, L.P., & New Castle Realty, LLC, 990 N.E.2d 958 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “The trial court found that “the undisputed evidence establishes that F & C’s conduct violate[d] Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2 (forgery and counterfeiting); I.”

Thomas L. Imes, Maryanne W. Imes, & St. Anne 420N, LLC v. City of Madison (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

Dawn Jackson v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

— Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2(a)(2)(A) — 1 case

Gerardo Correa-Diaz v. Jefferson B. Sessions III, 881 F.3d 523 (7th Cir. 2018).

— Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2(a)(2)(D) — 1 case

Allen L. Ruffin v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

— Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2(a)(l) — 1 case

— Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2(b) — 19 cases

Benefield v. State, 945 N.E.2d 791 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “” Ind.Code § 35-43-5-2(b). A merely reckless state of mind is simply not compatible with a specific intent to defraud.”

Benefield v. State, 904 N.E.2d 239 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “" Ind.Code § 35-43-5-2 provides: "A person who, with intent to defraud, makes, utters, or possesses a written instrument in such a manner that it purports to have been made: (1) by another person; (2) at another time; (3) with different provisions; or (4) by authority of one who…”

Williams v. State, 892 N.E.2d 666 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “” Ind.Code § 35-43-5-2(b) (2006). And to prove that she committed attempted theft, as a Class D felony, the State was required to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams “knowingly or intentionally” “engaged in conduct that constitute])!] a substantial step toward”…”

Wendell Brown a/k/a Menes Ankh El v. State of Indiana, 64 N.E.3d 1219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “Code § 35-43-2-1 (2011); forgery, a Class C felony, I.C. § 35-43-5-2(b) (2011); and driving while suspended, a Class A misdemeanor, I.”

— Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2(b)(1) — 5 cases

Lawrence Gyamfi v. State of Indiana, 15 N.E.3d 1131 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “On November 29, 2012, the State filed a request to amend the charging Information by adding Count III, forgery, a Class C felony, I.C. § 35-43-5-2(b)(1), which was subsequently approved by the trial court.”

Steven Linville v. State of Indiana, 120 N.E.3d 648 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

David K. Asiedu v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

Brandi Lynn Ramsey v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

Michael S. Collins v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

— Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2(b)(2) — 1 case

Elnesto Ray Valle v. State of Indiana, 989 N.E.2d 1268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

— Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2(b)(3) — 5 cases

Benefield v. State, 945 N.E.2d 791 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “” Ind.Code § 35-43-5-2(b). A merely reckless state of mind is simply not compatible with a specific intent to defraud.”

Hakuru Simaha v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

Benefield v. State, 901 N.E.2d 602 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

— Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2(b)(4) — 5 cases

Lohmiller v. State, 884 N.E.2d 903 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “4 To convict Lohmiller of forgery, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knowingly or intentionally made or uttered a written instrument in such a manner that it purports to have been made by authority of one who did not give authority.”

Diallo v. State, 928 N.E.2d 250 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

Donald J. Burns v. State of Indiana, 59 N.E.3d 323 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

Erica N. Dumes v. State of Indiana, 23 N.E.3d 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

Antwain Bateman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

— Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2(d) — 4 cases

Lesea, Inc. v. Lesea Broad. Corp., 379 F. Supp. 3d 732 (N.D. Ind. 2019).

William Hedrick v. State of Indiana, 124 N.E.3d 1273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

Rodney Paul Sniadecki v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

Marlon M. Banks v. State of Indiana (mem. dec) (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

— Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2(d)(1) — 1 case

Rodney Paul Sniadecki v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

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.