Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Benefield v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided April 7, 2009No. 41A01-0806-CR-272Published

1ConcurrenceMay, Judge

Although I agree with the majority's outcome, I respectfully concur only in result with its analysis of the second issue.

The heart of my disagreement is this statement by the majority: "Because knowledge of the falsity of the instrument [is] not an essential element of forgery, it follows that actual falsity is not an essential element." (Op. at 245.) The majority relies on this deduction to hold Final Instruction 6 was an incorrect statement of law because "the State was required to prove something that the statute itself does not require." (Id.) The "something" that the majority asserts the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Clemens v. KernIndiana Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Crowder v. TerhorstIndiana Court of Appeals · 1939

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API