Indiana Law Blog
When you’re accused of theft in Indiana, the law isn’t just about what you did—it’s about how the courts interpret what you did under the Indiana Code. At Harshman Ponist Smith & Rayl, we’re proud to offer “Trusted Counsel Close to Home,” guiding Hoosiers through the complexities of criminal law with a keen eye on statutory details. One statute that often sparks debate is Indiana Code § 35-43-4-2, the backbone of theft charges in our state. In 2025, understanding how the Indiana Court of Appeals interprets this law can mean the difference between a conviction and a dismissal. Let’s unpack a key point of statutory interpretation—what does “unauthorized control” really mean?—and see how it plays out in real cases.
The Theft Statute: A Quick Primer
Under Indiana Code § 35-43-4-2(a), theft occurs when someone “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.” It’s a Class A misdemeanor at its base, but it can jump to a Level 6 or Level 5 felony depending on factors like property value or prior convictions. The phrase “unauthorized control” is the linchpin—vague enough to invite interpretation, yet specific enough to convict. So, how do Indiana courts decide what crosses the line?
“Unauthorized Control”: A Battleground for Interpretation
The statute defines “unauthorized control” in § 35-43-4-1(b) as control exerted without consent, beyond the scope of consent, or through deception, among other means. But applying this to real-life scenarios gets messy. Does borrowing something without asking count? What if you’re an employee using company resources? The Indiana Court of Appeals has wrestled with these questions, and their rulings offer clarity—and a lifeline—for defendants.
Take Malone v. State (547 N.E.2d 1101, Ind. Ct. App. 1989). Michael Malone, an executive director at a community action program, was convicted of theft for using agency employees to install a roof vent and attic fan at his home. The Court of Appeals had to decide if his control over the employees’ labor was “unauthorized.” Malone argued there was no explicit policy forbidding it, and the evidence of consent was thin. The court disagreed, finding that circumstantial evidence—like the lack of board approval for personal use—supported an inference that his actions exceeded any implied consent. This case shows that “unauthorized” doesn’t always need a smoking gun; a jury can infer it from context.
Contrast that with Dixey v. State (No. 82A05-1104-CR-172, Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Edward Dixey faced a theft charge for tampering with utility equipment to siphon free electricity. On appeal, he argued the trial court mishandled lesser-offense instructions tied to the theft statute. The Court of Appeals reversed his conviction, not because “unauthorized control” was misapplied, but because the trial court blocked him from arguing that the evidence better fit a lesser crime like criminal conversion (which doesn’t require intent to deprive). This ruling underscores a key interpretive point: the theft statute’s elements—like “unauthorized control”—must align precisely with the evidence, or the case unravels.
Why This Matters in 2025
These cases highlight a recurring theme in 2025: statutory interpretation isn’t static. The Indiana Court of Appeals continues to refine what “unauthorized control” means, especially as new fact patterns—like digital theft or cryptocurrency scams—test the statute’s limits. For instance, if you’re accused of “borrowing” a coworker’s laptop without permission, is it theft if you planned to return it? What if you never moved it? Malone suggests intent and context matter more than your story alone. Meanwhile, Dixey reminds us that a skilled defense can pivot on whether the prosecution overreached in applying the statute.
At Harshman Ponist Smith & Rayl, we’ve seen how these interpretations shift the battlefield. It makes a huge difference having a skilled attorney when facing a Level 6 felony theft charge for allegedly misusing company equipment. Using the facts and the current battlefield of legal opinions may result in a dismissal or a plea to a misdemeanor, avoiding felony consequences. That’s the power of knowing the law—and the cases that shape it.
Fighting Back with Local Know-How
Statutory interpretation isn’t just academic; it’s your defense in action. If you’re charged with theft in Indiana, don’t assume the prosecution’s reading of “unauthorized control” is gospel. The Court of Appeals has shown it’s a term ripe for challenge—whether through lack of consent, ambiguous evidence, or prosecutorial overreach. As your Trusted Counsel Close to Home, Harshman Ponist Smith & Rayl digs into these nuances, tailoring defenses to Indiana’s courts and communities.
Facing a theft charge? Call us today for a free consultation. We’ll break down the statute, scour the case law, and fight for you—right here, close to home.