Linda M. Neese v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 454
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Neese issued a personal check for $2,500 to Reed on January 6, 2011 to obtain $2,500 cash to bail her son out of jail.
- Reed presented the check on February 25, 2011; the bank refused payment because Neese’s account was closed.
- Reed notified the Johnson County Prosecutor’s Office; Garland sent Neese a check deception notice on March 25, 2011.
- Neese attempted to arrange payment but never paid the amount owed; she has not repaid Reed.
- Neese was charged with class A misdemeanor check deception on August 30, 2012; bench trial held February 28, 2013.
- The trial court convicted Neese after applying the affirmative-defense analysis under Ind. Code § 35-43-5-5(f) and found she failed to prove the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the crime | Neese acted knowing funds would not be paid | State failed to disprove the affirmative defense | Yes; sufficient evidence established knowledge and improper payment |
| Whether subsection (f) is an affirmative defense or an element | Subsection (f) is not an element, thus no burden shift | Subsection (f) served as an affirmative defense | Affirmative defense; burden on Neese to prove by preponderance of the evidence |
| Whether Neese proved the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence | Reed knew Neese lacked funds, satisfying defense | Knowledge did not align with bank nonpayment due to a closed account | No; defense not proven; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Joslyn v. State, 942 N.E.2d 809 (Ind. 2011) (governing sufficiency review; do not reweigh evidence)
- Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171 (Ind. 2011) (sufficiency standard in criminal appeals)
- Cooper v. State, 391 N.E.2d 841 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979) (statutory inference of knowledge in check deception cases)
- Lyles v. State, 970 N.E.2d 140 (Ind. 2012) (defines element vs. affirmative defense; analysis of statutory exception)
- Gunashekar v. Grose, 915 N.E.2d 953 (Ind. 2009) (treatment of subsection (f) as defense in prior version)
- Parrish v. Anne Selig Marek, P.C., 537 N.E.2d 39 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (civil context discussion of subsection (f) as defense)
- Lemert Eng’g Co. v. Monroe Auto Equip. Co., 444 N.E.2d 859 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (earlier view on subsection (f) as element vs. defense)