IC § 35-43-4-2 Theft Sec. 2.

(a) A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is:

(1) a Level 6 felony if:

(A) the value of the property is at least seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) and less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000);

(B) the property is a firearm; or

(C) the person has a prior unrelated conviction for:

(i) theft under this section; or

(ii) criminal conversion under section 3 of this chapter; and

(2) a Level 5 felony if:

(A) the value of the property is at least fifty thousand dollars ($50,000); or

(B) the property that is the subject of the theft is a valuable metal (as defined in IC 25-37.5-1-1) and:

(i) relates to transportation safety;

(ii) relates to public safety; or

(iii) is taken from a hospital or other health care facility, telecommunications provider, public utility (as defined in IC 32-24-1-5.9(a)), or key facility;

and the absence of the property creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to a person.

(b) In determining the value of property under this section, acts of theft committed in a single episode of criminal conduct (as defined in IC 35-50-1-2(b)) may be charged in a single count.

(c) For purposes of this section, “the value of property” means:

(1) the fair market value of the property at the time and place the offense was committed; or

(2) if the fair market value of the property cannot be satisfactorily determined, the cost to replace the property within a reasonable time after the offense was committed.

A price tag or price marking on property displayed or offered for sale constitutes prima facie evidence of the value of the property. 

Notes

– Can a witness testify to what “a price tag” says or would this violate the Rules of Evidence?

Case Law

– Mere presence when another commits petit larceny is not sufficient to authorize conviction. Carey v. State, 144 N.E.2d 22 (Ind. 1924).

– Even if there was no active participation in the commission of the crime, failure to oppose it at the time, companionship with another engaged therein, and a course of conduct before and after the offense were such circumstances as could be considered in determining whether aiding or abetting could be inferred.  Cotton v. State, 211 N.E.2d 158 (Ind. 1965).

DISCLAIMER – The information contained on this website is provided for educational and informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice or as an offer to perform legal services on any subject matter. The content of this web site contains general information and may not reflect current legal developments or information. The information is not guaranteed to be correct, complete or current. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, about the accuracy or reliability of the information at this website or at any other website to which it is linked.  Recipients of content from this site should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in the site without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the recipient’s state.  Nothing herein is intended to create an attorney-client relationship and shall not be construed as legal advice. This is not an offer to represent you, nor is it intended to create an attorney-client relationship.