Case Title: Elmer Bennett v. State of Indiana

Citation: 

Docket Number: 49S02-0801-CR-12

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2008-01-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 
David Becsey 
Steve Carter 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
Attorney General of Indiana 
 
 
Barbara A. Nardi 
 
Cynthia L. Ploughe 
 
Deputy Attorneys General 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
 
 
No. 49S02-0801-CR-12 
 
ELMER BENNETT, 
 
Appellant (Defendant below), 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF INDIANA, 
 
Appellee (Plaintiff below). 
 
 
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Criminal Division, No. 49F15-0510-FD-185054 
The Honorable Scott Devries, Commissioner 
 
 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-0609-CR-739 
 
 
January 9, 2008 
 
Shepard, Chief Justice. 
 
 
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. 
 
FILED
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
Jan 09 2008, 12:18 pm
 
2
 
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.