Court Opinion

ID: 9711921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:42:04.195506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:08.382784
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
concurring.
Check deception is issuing or delivering an immediately payable check with a particular knowledge at the time, namely that the check will not be paid upon presentment, which knowledge is not shared with the payee. 1.C. 35-43-5-5(a) and (£). The elements of the crime are (1) knowing or intentional, (2) issuing or delivering, (3) an immediately payable instrument, and (4) unshared knowledge. The prosecution should make a prima facie case upon proof of (1) venue, (2) identity, (3) a knowing or intentional issuing or delivering, (4) an immediately payable instrument, and (5) unshared knowledge. The crime would be complete upon the delivery.
The Court of Appeals and the majority find an additional element of the crime in 1.C. 85-48-5-5(e). This additional element appears to be a failure of the defendant to make payment of the amount due as represented by the check after gaining knowledge that the check was not paid by the bank. There is no such element to be found there. By its express wording, Sec. 5(e) defines a defense to the crime of check deception. The defense is available to a defined class of defendants, who in the absence of this defense would appropriately be found guilty of the crime of check deception. The Sec. 5(e) defense is in essence made out upon proof by the defendant that he paid the payee the amount due within a ten day period which commenced when written notice of non-payment by the bank was sent out to him. Consequently, the evidence of guilt was not insufficient because of the failure of the prosecution to prove notice of non-payment.
SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, J., concur.