Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

688 N.E.2d 917

State v. Moore

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided December 9, 1997

Indiana Court of Appeals · decided 1997-12-09

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[T]he language of the statute does not support this construction. [Indiana Code Section] 35-46-l-5(a) makes only one reference as to whom the support is owed: “the person’s dependent child.” Since the legislature declined to mention the term “children” with regard to the Class “C” felony, it is not appropriate to incorporate the word here.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Sanjari v. State

“the language of the statute does not support this construction” and that, to prove one Class C felony, the State had to show that the defendant”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Sickels v. State

Relies on Gore v. State · Bond v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-12-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 2012

5 state decisions

30199720002010decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 OPINION

SULLIVAN, Judge

¶2 An interlocutory appeal filed by the State of Indiana challenges the dismissal of three counts of felony child nonsupport against Charles L. Moore. The trial court dismissed the charges because it found I.C. 35-46-1-5(a) (Burns Code Ed. Supp.1997) to be ambiguous.

¶3 We affirm.

¶4 Because the statute involved is penal, the State may only prevail if the plain language of the statute is clear. Ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the criminal defendant. Gore v. State (1983) Ind.App., 456 N.E.2d 1030, 1033. Moreover, criminal statutes “may not be enlarged beyond the fair meaning of the language used and may not be held to include offenses other than those clearly defined.” Bond v. State (1987) Ind., 515 N.E.2d 856, 858.

¶5 The State argues that the imposition of a Class “C” felony under I.C. 35-46-1-5(a) is warranted if an individual owes at least $10,000 in child support. This calculation is not to be made in reference to any one child; rather, the aggregate amount in arrears for all of the individual’s children is the applicable standard. However, the language of the statute does not support this construction. I.C. 35-46-1-5(a) makes' only one reference as to whom the support is owed: “the person’s dependent child.” Since the legislature declined to mention the term “children” with regard to the Class “C” felony, it is not appropriate to incorporate the word here.

¶6 The record does not indicate that Moore owed more than $10,000 in child support with respect to any individual child. Therefore, the trial court did not err in dismissing the charges.

¶7 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

FRIEDLANDER and CHEZEM, JJ., concur.
/688/ne2d/917 · .json · Public domain