This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D was employed by the City of Indianapolis, as a computer operator. The City leased computer services on a fixed charge or flat rate basis. D had a terminal at his desk and was assigned a portion of the computer's information storage capacity. D became involved in a private sales venture and began soliciting his co-workers and used a small portion of his assigned computer memory to maintain records associated with the venture. D was reprimanded and eventually discharged for unsatisfactory job performance and for continuing his personal business activities during office hours. D applied for and received unemployment compensation benefits, over the protest of the City. D requested a former fellow employee to obtain a 'print-out' of his business data and then to erase it from what had been his library. Instead, the 'print-out' was turned over to D's former supervisor and became the basis for the criminal charges. D was charged with nine counts of theft alleging that he knowingly exerted 'unauthorized control over the property of the City of Indianapolis, Indiana, to-wit: the use of computers and computer services with intent to deprive the City of Indianapolis.' He was convicted upon two counts, following a trial by jury. The trial court, thereafter, granted his renewed motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals (First District) reversed the trial court and ordered the verdicts reinstated. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.