ILNews

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT