From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Moore

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Dec 9, 1997
688 N.E.2d 917 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)

Summary

holding that under the prior version of the statute, the State could not aggregate amounts owed for more than one child in order to reach the amount needed to elevate the crime to a Class C felony

Summary of this case from Porter v. State

Opinion

No. 79A02-9702-CR-115.

December 9, 1997.

Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court No. 1, The Honorable Donald C. Johnson, Judge, Cause No. 79D01-9610-CF-64.

JEFFREY A. MODISETT, Attorney General of Indiana, Attorney for Appellant.

PRISCILLA J. FOSSUM, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana, STEVEN P. MEYER, Rosenthal, Greives, O'Bryan Meyer, Lafayette, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellee.


An interlocutory appeal filed by the State of Indiana challenges the dismissal of three counts of felony child nonsupport against Charles L. Moore. The trial court dismissed the charges because it found I.C. 35-46-1-5(a) (Burns Code Ed. Supp. 1997) to be ambiguous.

We affirm.

Because the statute involved is penal, the State may only prevail if the plain language of the statute is clear. Ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the criminal defendant. Gore v. State (1983) Ind. App., 456 N.E.2d 1030, 1033. Moreover, criminal statutes "may not be enlarged beyond the fair meaning of the language used and may not be held to include offenses other than those clearly defined." Bond v. State (1987) Ind., 515 N.E.2d 856, 858.

The State argues that the imposition of a Class "C" felony under I.C. 35-46-1-5(a) is warranted if an individual owes at least $10,000 in child support. This calculation is not to be made in reference to any one child; rather, the aggregate amount in arrears for all of the individual's children is the applicable standard. However, the language of the statute does not support this construction. I.C. 35-46-1-5(a) makes only one reference as to whom the support is owed: "the person's dependent child." Since the legislature declined to mention the term "children" with regard to the Class "C" felony, it is not appropriate to incorporate the word here.

The record does not indicate that Moore owed more than $10,000 in child support with respect to any individual child. Therefore, the trial court did not err in dismissing the charges.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

FRIEDLANDER, J., and CHEZEM, J., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Moore

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Dec 9, 1997
688 N.E.2d 917 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)

holding that under the prior version of the statute, the State could not aggregate amounts owed for more than one child in order to reach the amount needed to elevate the crime to a Class C felony

Summary of this case from Porter v. State

In Moore, the State charged the defendant with multiple class C felonies based upon “the aggregate amount in arrears for all of [Moore's] children.

Summary of this case from Sanjari v. State
Case details for

State v. Moore

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF INDIANA, APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF, vs. CHARLES L. MOORE, APPELLEE

Court:Court of Appeals of Indiana

Date published: Dec 9, 1997

Citations

688 N.E.2d 917 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)

Citing Cases

Sickels v. State

See P.L. 123–2001 § 4. Before the statutory amendment, this court had interpreted the law to require the…

Sickels v. State

See P.L. 123-2001 § 4. Before the statutory amendment, this court had interpreted the law to require the…