Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-43-5-5 (2026)
Repealed
✓ current as of May 2026
As added by Acts 1978, P.L.144, SEC.6. Amended by Acts 1981, P.L.303, SEC.1; P.L.268-1983, SEC.2; P.L.328-1983, SEC.1; P.L.298-1989, SEC.1; P.L.42-1993, SEC.96; P.L.300-1995, SEC.1; P.L.85-2003, SEC.1; P.L.158-2013, SEC.477. Repealed by P.L.174-2021, SEC.53.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: Darryl Calvin v. State of Indiana, 87 N.E.3d 474 (Ind. 2017).
Darryl Calvin v. State of Indiana, 87 N.E.3d 474 (Ind. 2017). “Legis. Analyst’s Office (Jan. 6, 1995), http://www.”
Creekmore v. State, 853 N.E.2d 523 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Ind.Code Ann. § 35-43-5-5 (West, PREMISE through 2006 Public Laws approved and effective through March 15, 2006).”
Gunashekar v. Grose, 915 N.E.2d 953 (Ind. 2009). “The trial court did not find that Rudrappa committed "check deception" under Ind.Code § 35-43-5-5, to which the defense he mentions applies.”
Leroy Epps & Robert Venable, III v. Creditnet, Inc., 320 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2003). “The suits were filed under Indiana Code §§ 35-43-5-5, 1 34-24-3-1, 2 the Indiana check deception statutes criminalizing the intentional delivery of a bad *758 check and providing the victim a civil action for treble damages for such a criminal violation.”
Linda M. Neese v. State of Indiana, 994 N.E.2d 336 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “Indiana Code Section 35-43-5-5(c) specifically provides that “[t]he fact that a person issued or delivered a check, a draft, or an order, payment of which was refused by the drawee, constitutes prima facie evidence that the person knew that it would not be paid or honored.”
Creekmore v. State, 858 N.E.2d 230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Ind.Code Ann. § 35-43-5-5 (West, PREMISE through 2006 Public Laws approved and effective through March 15, 2006).”
Terri L. Bass v. Stolper, Koritzinsky, Brewster & Neider, S.C. & Kathy Leschensky, 111 F.3d 1322 (7th Cir. 1997). “§ 5-37-307 (knowledge of insufficient funds is presumed if bank notifies issuer of dishonor within 30 days and issuer fails to pay within 10 days of notice); Ind.Code § 35-43-5-5 (fact that check was refused or that person had no account at the bank is prima facie evidence of…”
United States v. Barbara A. Harris, 325 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2003). “Harris contends that, in order to determine whether the shoplifting convictions ought to be counted, we ought to apply the five-point comparison set forth in United States v. Booker, 71 F.3d 685, 689 (7th Cir.”
Vanway v. State, 541 N.E.2d 523 (Ind. 1989). “” Ind.Code § 35-43-5-5. The defendant was charged with forgery by way of an information that stated in pertinent part: “.”
Stoutco, Inc. v. AMMA, INC., 620 F. Supp. 657 (N.D. Ind. 1985). “In this case, the violation forming the basis for the claim under this section is found at I.C. § 35-43-5-5 which provides in pertinent part as follows: A person who knowingly or intentionally issues or delivers a check .”
Braden Corp. v. Citizens Nat'l Bank of Evansville, 661 N.E.2d 838 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). “The defendants assert that they did not issue the check knowing that it would not be paid or honored by NBD and thus, they did not violate I.C. § 35-43-5-5 and cannot be held liable for treble damages.”
Bullock v. Credit Bureau of Greater Indianapolis, Inc., 272 F. Supp. 2d 780 (S.D. Ind. 2003). “Ind.Code § 35-43-5-5(c) (crime of check deception).”
— Ind. Code § 35-43-5-5(a) — 3 cases
Henderson v. State, 647 N.E.2d 7 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).
Barnes v. State, 676 N.E.2d 764 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).
Sparkman v. State, 432 N.E.2d 437 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982).
— Ind. Code § 35-43-5-5(a)(1) — 1 case
Heartland Footwear Sales, Inc. v. 8215774 Canada, Inc. (N.D. Ind. 2021).
— Ind. Code § 35-43-5-5(c) — 4 cases
Georgia Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Miller (In Re Miller), 112 B.R. 937 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1989).
Linda M. Neese v. State of Indiana, 994 N.E.2d 336 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “Indiana Code Section 35-43-5-5(c) specifically provides that “[t]he fact that a person issued or delivered a check, a draft, or an order, payment of which was refused by the drawee, constitutes prima facie evidence that the person knew that it would not be paid or honored.”
Bullock v. Credit Bureau of Greater Indianapolis, Inc., 272 F. Supp. 2d 780 (S.D. Ind. 2003). “Ind.Code § 35-43-5-5(c) (crime of check deception).”
Braden Corp. v. Citizens Nat'l Bank of Evansville, 661 N.E.2d 838 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). “The defendants assert that they did not issue the check knowing that it would not be paid or honored by NBD and thus, they did not violate I.C. § 35-43-5-5 and cannot be held liable for treble damages.”
— Ind. Code § 35-43-5-5(e) — 1 case
Bullock v. Credit Bureau of Greater Indianapolis, Inc., 272 F. Supp. 2d 780 (S.D. Ind. 2003). “Ind.Code § 35-43-5-5(c) (crime of check deception).”
— Ind. Code § 35-43-5-5(f) — 2 cases
Linda M. Neese v. State of Indiana, 994 N.E.2d 336 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “Indiana Code Section 35-43-5-5(c) specifically provides that “[t]he fact that a person issued or delivered a check, a draft, or an order, payment of which was refused by the drawee, constitutes prima facie evidence that the person knew that it would not be paid or honored.”
Nancy L. Beeman v. Robert E. Wyman (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
— Ind. Code § 35-43-5-5(f)(1) — 1 case
Gunashekar v. Grose, 915 N.E.2d 953 (Ind. 2009). “The trial court did not find that Rudrappa committed "check deception" under Ind.Code § 35-43-5-5, to which the defense he mentions applies.”
— Ind. Code § 35-43-5-5(f)(2) — 1 case
Nancy L. Beeman v. Robert E. Wyman (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
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.