Skinner v. State
| Decision Date | 20 October 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 49S05-0010-CR-592.,49S05-0010-CR-592. |
| Citation | 736 N.E.2d 1222 |
| Parties | Melissa SKINNER, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). Brandon Cockrell, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. State of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Michael E. Caudill, Indianapolis, Indiana, for Appellant.
Karen M. Freeman-Wilson, Attorney General of Indiana, Adam M. Dulik, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana, for Appellee.
The State charged appellants Melissa J. Skinner and Brandon H. Cockrell with defrauding a financial institution, Ind.Code Ann. § 35-43-5-8 (West 1998), in cases arising out of separate facts.
Appellants assert that the allegations against them also fall under the statute that criminalizes check fraud, Ind.Code Ann. § 35-43-5-12(b) (West 1998). Relying on State v. Wynne, 699 N.E.2d 717 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), they contend that the State may charge them only with check fraud, the check fraud statute being both more specific and more recently adopted. The net result of accepting this contention would be reducing the class of felony and therefore the potential penalty.
The Court of Appeals in this appeal declined to follow Wynne. Instead, it held that when two criminal statutes overlap such that either may cover a given set of facts, the prosecutor has the discretion to charge under either statute. Skinner v. State 732 N.E.2d 235 (Ind.Ct.App.2000).
We grant transfer and summarily affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals in these consolidated cases. Ind. Appellate Rule 11(B)(3). The decision in State v. Wynne is disapproved.
The judgments of the trial court are thus affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dugan
...discretion of prosecuting under any or all of the applicable statutes. See Hendrix v. State, 759 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind.2001); Skinner v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind.2000); Adams v. State, 262 Ind. 220, 314 N.E.2d 53, 56 (1974). Here, both Ind.Code §§ 7.1-5-1-8 and 35-44-1-2(1) can apply. The Sta......
-
Coy v. State, 48A02–1301–CR–65.
...are decisions that generally rest in the prosecutor's discretion.” Skinner v. State, 732 N.E.2d 235, 238 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), aff'd, 736 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind.2000) (quoting Comer v. State, 428 N.E.2d 48, 54 (Ind.Ct.App.1981) ), trans. denied. Moreover, “[t]he State need not prosecute under the mo......
-
State v. Manuwal
...such that either may cover a given set of facts, the prosecutor has the discretion to charge under either statute. Skinner v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1222, 1222 (Ind.2000). And we further agree with the notion that the State is not required to prosecute under the more specific of two statutes or ......
-
Ervin v. State
...that the prosecutor has discretion to decide whether to prosecute and under what statute or statutes to file charges. Skinner v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1222, 1222 (Ind.2000). In other words, when two criminal statutes appear to "overlap," such that more than one statute appears to define the act......