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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT