State of Indiana v. Daniel E. Riley, 980 N.E.2d 920

Riley, at Belterra Casino, jabbed Warfield and sought to file a casino complaint; Smoot, an Indiana Gaming Agent, reviewed video and decided to file charges and evict Riley; Riley initially filed a complaint but did not pursue it; the State charged battery on December 19, 2011, with Smoot as affiant; Riley moved to dismiss, challenging Smoot’s jurisdiction and qualification to affirm the information; the trial court dismissed without prejudice, and the State appealed asserting abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the dismissal of the information an abuse of discretion?	State contends Smoot’s actions do not affect charging; information proper.	Riley argues Smoot outside jurisdiction and not qualified to affirm; dismissal warranted.	Abuse of discretion; information proper; reverse.
May Smoot affirm the information as an affiant?	Smoot can swear to the incident on video; no requirement that officer sign.	Not stated as separate contention; implied challenge to affiant-eligibility.	Yes; any person may affirm the information; Smoot valid.

Schweitzer v. State, 531 N.E.2d 1386 (Ind. 1989) (probable-cause testimony not required to dispatch case; information not dismissed)
Felders v. State, 516 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 1987) (invalid arrest does not affect the right to try a case)
Gilliam v. State, 383 N.E.2d 297 (Ind. 1978) (probable cause affidavit relates to detention, not charging)
Pond v. State, 808 N.E.2d 718 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (lack of probable cause not grounds for dismissing charging information)
Lashley v. State, 745 N.E.2d 254 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (prosecuting witness signature serves policy purpose; no rigid rule on signatory)
Bowling v. State, 230 N.E.2d 439 (Ind. 1967) (absence of prosecuting witness signature on affidavit did not deprive jurisdiction)
Alstott v. State, 185 N.E. 896 (Ind. 1933) (any person may swear to an affidavit)