Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Clancy v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided June 15, 2005No. 45A05-0405-CR-272Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDarden, Judge

I concur as to Issues I, III, and IV. With respect to Issue II, I respectfully dissent.

It has long been the law in Indiana that criminal statutes are "strictly construed against the State." Sunday v. State, 720 N.E.2d 716, 719 (Ind.1999); see also e.g., Fahnestock v. State, 102 Ind. 156, 1 N.E. 872, 877 (1885). We look to the "plain, ordinary, and usual meaning of the language unless the statute itself provides a contrary meaning." Sunday, 720 N.E.2d at 718.

The statute defines the offense of false informing as the giving of "false information in the official investigation of the commission of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Fahnestock v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Sunday v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API