## Facts

- Michael McGraw worked for the City of Indianapolis as a computer operator.
- To perform his job, McGraw was given a computer terminal at his desk and was assigned a portion of the computer system’s information storage capacity for his exclusive use.
- McGraw became involved in a private sales venture and began using part of the City’s computer storage capacity to keep business records connected to that venture.
- McGraw was repeatedly reprimanded and later terminated after selling his products at work and during working hours.
- After his termination, McGraw asked a former co-employee to obtain a printout of his business records and then erase those records from the computer storage space that had been assigned to him.
- The City obtained the printout.
- The State charged McGraw by information with multiple counts of theft under Indiana Code § 35-43-4-2, alleging he knowingly exerted unauthorized control over the City’s property—“the use of computers and computer services”—with intent to deprive the City of their value or use.
- A jury found McGraw guilty on two counts.
- After the verdict, the trial court granted McGraw’s renewed motion to dismiss, reasoning (in “jurisdictional” terms) that the theft statute did not apply to the conduct shown by the evidence.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and ordered the guilty verdicts reinstated.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court’s post-verdict ruling, though labeled as a “jurisdictional” problem, was in substance a judgment on the evidence (an acquittal) under Indiana Trial Rule 50(A)(6).
2. Whether the evidence that McGraw used City computers and computer services for personal profit, without more, was sufficient to prove theft under Indiana Code § 35-43-4-2 as charged.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacating the Court of Appeals’ decision.
- The court treated the trial court’s post-verdict ruling as a judgment on the evidence under Trial Rule 50(A)(6), meaning McGraw “stands acquitted.”
- The court rejected the Court of Appeals’ view that unauthorized use of another’s property for monetary benefit, without more, constitutes theft under Indiana Code § 35-43-4-2.
- Because the ruling amounted to an acquittal, the guilty verdicts could not be reinstated.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court’s ruling is evaluated by its substance and effect, not the label used; an order framed as “jurisdictional” may be treated as a judgment on the evidence if it reflects a determination that the State failed to prove guilt on the trial record.
- A judgment on the evidence under Indiana Trial Rule 50(A)(6) functions as an acquittal when it rests on evidentiary insufficiency.
- For theft charged as knowingly exerting unauthorized control over property with intent to deprive, the State must prove the statutory elements on the evidence presented; using another’s property for personal gain “without more” is not automatically theft under the statute.
- When a defendant has been acquitted by a judgment on the evidence, appellate action cannot reinstate the guilty verdicts in a way that would undo the acquittal.

## Conclusion

State v. McGraw holds that a post-verdict “dismissal” based on the trial evidence may be treated as a judgment on the evidence and therefore an acquittal, and it rejects the idea that unauthorized use of government computer resources for private profit, standing alone, satisfies Indiana’s theft statute as charged.


State v. McGraw, 480 N.E.2d 552 (1985)