Bad check in exchange for loan leads to conviction

Marilyn Odendahl
September 20, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A woman who got bail money from a friend by giving him a bad check failed to prove she did not purposely mislead and deceive him.

Linda Neese was convicted of one count Class A misdemeanor check deception after she failed to make any payment on a bad check she issued to her friend, Thomas Reed. She had given Reed a check for $2,500 in exchange for cash so she could bail her son out of jail.

At that time, Neese told Reed she would not have the funds in her checking account to cover the check for another four months. Reed attempted to cash the check before the four months had ended but was told by Neese’s bank that her account was closed.

During her trial, Neese presented evidence that Reed knew there was insufficient funds to cover the check.

A unanimous Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in Linda M. Neese v. State of Indiana, 41A01-1303-CR-138. The court found Neese did not meet the burden of proving her affirmative defense.

Although Reed had been told not to cash the check before April 15, 2011, he was led to believe the account until then would have insufficient funds. Neese did not tell Reed the check would not be honored because her accounted had been closed.

The Court of Appeals held the reasonable inference from those facts is that Neese knowingly issued the check on a closed account. She failed to show she shared that knowledge with Reed so he was not misled, deceived or defrauded by her.

“Where, as here, the payor cannot establish by preponderance of evidence that the payee know that the payor has insufficient funds to ensure payment of the check and that the check was not honored upon presentment for that reason, the affirmative defense has not been proven,” Judge Terry Crone wrote.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit