257 Ind. 8 - Stotts v. State

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 2014

10 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Opinion Denying Petition For Rehearing

Hunter, J.

¶2In his petition for rehearing, appellant contends this Court has contravened a ruling precedent of this *17Court established in Strickland v. State (1940), 217 Ind. 588, 29 N. E. 2d 950. He asserts this case stands for the proposition that wording such as that contained in the safe burglary statute, IC 1971, 35-1-61-1 (Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-702a [1956 Repl.]), must define two separate offenses. However, Stricklandinvolves the separate and distinct offenses of forgery and uttering a forged instrument. See IC 35-1-124-1 (Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-2102 [1956 Repl.]). Upon reading the forgery statute it is cogently clear that it cannot stand for the proposition appellant asserts. The first part of the statute which defines forgery specifies numerous different methods of committing forgery and they are stated in the disjunctive. So too in our construction of the safe burglary statute, there are different methods of committing the same offense stated in the disjunctive. The fact that the forgery statute also goes on to define another offense of uttering a forged instrument (also containing different methods of commission stated in the disjunctive) is of no consequence. Therefore, this petition for rehearing must be denied.

¶3Petition denied.

¶4Arterburn, C.J., DeBruler, Givan and Prentice, JJ., concur.

¶5Note. — Reported in 274 N. E. 2d 238.