From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bennett v. State

Supreme Court of Indiana
Jan 9, 2008
878 N.E.2d 836 (Ind. 2008)

Summary

finding " theft conviction may be sustained by circumstantial evidence"

Summary of this case from Halliburton v. State

Opinion

No. 49S02-O801-CR-12.

January 9, 2008.

Appeal from the Marion Superior Court; Criminal Division, The Honorable Scott Devries, Commissioner; Cause No. 49F15-0510-FD-185054.

David Becsey, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Barbara A. Nardi, Cynthia L. Ploughe, Deputy Attorneys General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.


On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-0609-CR-739


The contention in this appeal is that to obtain a conviction for theft, the State must prove the defendant intended to deprive the owner of its use — permanently. The Court of Appeals correctly rejected this contention.

The State charged appellant Elmer Bennett with theft and auto theft, both class D felonies. The trial court found Bennett guilty and sentenced him to two years in the Department of Correction for each count, served concurrently.

Bennett appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and arguing that Indiana's theft statute requires proof that the offender intended to deprive the owner permanently of the value or use of his property. The Court of Appeals affirmed, Bennett v. State, 871 N.E.2d 316 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007), and got it absolutely right.

Relying on our decision in Coff v. State, 483 N.E.2d 39 (Ind. 1985), the Court of Appeals held that Ind. Code §§ 35-43-4-2 (theft) and -2.5 (auto theft) do not require the State to prove that the defendant intended to deprive the owner of his property permanently. In Coff, the defendant was convicted of theft and raised the same argument on appeal that Bennett raises here. We rejected the notion that Indiana's theft statute contains the common law larceny element requiring intent to permanently deprive.

This aspect of Coff is still good law. We grant transfer and adopt the opinion of the Court. of Appeals under Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(1).

We affirm the trial court.

DICKSON, SULLIVAN, BOEHM, and RUCKER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bennett v. State

Supreme Court of Indiana
Jan 9, 2008
878 N.E.2d 836 (Ind. 2008)

finding " theft conviction may be sustained by circumstantial evidence"

Summary of this case from Halliburton v. State

affirming Bennett v. State, 871 N.E.2d 316 (Ind. App. 2007), confirming that Coff v. State, 483 N.E.2d 39 (Ind. 1985) is still good law

Summary of this case from In the Matter of Bennett
Case details for

Bennett v. State

Case Details

Full title:Elmer BENNETT, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee…

Court:Supreme Court of Indiana

Date published: Jan 9, 2008

Citations

878 N.E.2d 836 (Ind. 2008)

Citing Cases

Walker v. State

However, as correctly observed by the State, intent to permanently deprive a victim of the value or use of…

Rivera v. State

Rivera also emphasizes that the wallet was quickly recovered and returned to Tim with its contents intact,…