author: MAY, Judge.

text:
    Richard LEGGS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
    No. 49A02-1105-CR-522.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana.
    April 23, 2012.

      Darren Bedwell, Marion County Public Defender, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
    Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Brian Reitz, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

      . Ind.Code § 3.5-42 — 2-2(c)(2).

   OPINION

MAY, Judge.

Richard Leggs appeals his conviction of and sentence for two counts of Class B felony criminal confinement and one count each of Class C felony intimidation, Class C felony criminal recklessness, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. He presents five issues for our review:

1. Whether the charging information for the count of Class C felony intimidation was deficient;
2. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence Leggs committed Class C felony intimidation;
3. Whether the enhancement of three convictions based on Leggs’ use of a single knife subjected him to double jeopardy; and
4. Whether his two convictions of criminal confinement violated the “continuing crime” doctrine.

We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 24, 2010, Leggs and his wife, Kimberly, were home watching television when Leggs got up to go to the kitchen. On his way out of the room, he called Kimberly a “fat bitch.” (Tr. at 47.) Leggs returned to the room, walked past the television, and asked Kimberly what she was looking at. Kimberly responded she was looking at the television, to which Leggs replied, “You’re gonna die today. I hate you.” (Id. at 48.)

Kimberly grabbed her purse and keys, and attempted to leave the residence, but Leggs took them from her. She then tried to use her cell phone to call for help, but Leggs took the cell phone. Leggs again said Kimberly was “gonna die,” (id. at 49), and he pulled a kitchen knife from his pocket. Leggs pushed Kimberly on the bed and jumped on top of her. He held the knife over her head and made stabbing motions toward her nose, ear, and temple. Leggs told Kimberly, “I hate you. You don’t love me like you used to[,]” (id. at 51), and then he stabbed her twice in the stomach.

Kimberly bit Leggs and was able to push him from atop her. She ran toward the door of the bedroom; Leggs followed her while making slashing motions with the knife, resulting in a cut on Kimberly’s leg. Kimberly ran to the dining room, picked up a lamp, and struck Leggs with it. The couple struggled and ended up on the floor. The knife fell out of Leggs’ hand, and he told Kimberly she was not “gonna leave there alive.” (Id. at 53.)

At the time, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officers Scott Childers and Greg Crabtree were in the Leggs’ apartment complex investigating a burglary in another unit. Officer Childers heard Kimberly crying and Leggs threatening her, and he knocked on the door of the Leggs’ apartment. Kimberly attempted to answer the door, but Leggs pushed her back on the floor and held her there. Officer Childers heard Kimberly say, “let me out,” and heard Leggs respond, “No, I’m not letting you out. I’m going to kill you.” (Id. at 64.) Officer Childers knocked on the door again, and Leggs told Kimberly to open the door.

Kimberly opened the door and told Officer Childers, “I’ve been stabbed. Help me.” (Id.) Leggs pushed Kimberly aside and attempted to run down the hall. Officer Childers grabbed Leggs, and a struggle ensued. Officers Childers and Crab-tree eventually were able to subdue and handcuff Leggs. Kimberly was transported to the hospital, where she underwent surgery.

The State charged Leggs with two counts of Class B felony criminal confinement, two counts of Class C felony battery, domestic battery as both a Class A misdemeanor and Class D felony, and one count each of Class C felony intimidation, Class C felony criminal recklessness, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. For almost a year after he was charged, Leggs was incompetent to stand trial due to cognitive and speech difficulties resulting from a stroke in January 2010. On January 28, 2011, the trial court determined Leggs was competent to stand trial. The State amended the charging information on March 24 to include an allegation Leggs was an habitual offender.

After a bench trial, the trial court entered convictions on all counts, but acquitted Leggs of the habitual offender enhancement. During the sentencing hearing on May 20, the trial court merged the two Class C felony battery counts and the Class D felony domestic battery count into the second count of Class B felony criminal confinement. The State requested the sentences for the two criminal confinement counts run consecutively, while Leggs argued the two counts were part of a continuing course of conduct. The trial court ordered the following four sentences served concurrently: fourteen years for Class B felony criminal confinement, five years for Class C felony intimidation, 545 days for Class D felony criminal recklessness, and 365 days for Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. For the second count of Class B felony criminal confinement, the trial court sentenced Leggs to six years and ordered it served consecutive to his other sentences, for an aggregate sentence of twenty years.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

1. Charging Information for Intimidation

In charging Leggs with Class C felony intimidation, the State alleged:

Richard Leggs, on or about February 24, 2010, did communicate to Kimberly Leggs, another person, a threat to commit a forcible felony, that is: that Richard Leggs would kill Kimberly Leggs, in retaliation for a prior lawful act, that is: attempting to leave the residence, and while making said threat did draw or use a deadly weapon, that is: pulled a knife from his waistband[.]

(App. at 28-29.) The elements of Class C felony intimidation as charged against Leggs are:

(a) A person who communicates a threat to another person, with the intent:
(2) that the other person be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act;
commits intimidation, a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) However, the offense is a
(1) Class D felony if:
(A) the threat is to commit a forcible felony;
(2) Class C felony if, while committing it, the person draws or uses a deadly weapon.

Ind.Code § 35-45-2-1.

Leggs argues the charging information for Class C felony intimidation does not allege that he acted with the intent to place Kimberly in fear. The State argues Leggs has waived this issue for review, because he did not move to dismiss the charge against him. As the State notes: “The proper method to challenge deficiencies in a charging information is to file a motion to dismiss the information, no later than twenty days before the omnibus date.” Miller v. State, 634 N.E.2d 57, 60 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (citing Ind.Code § 35-34-l-4(b)(l)).

To avoid waiver, Leggs must demonstrate fundamental error. See id. (“Failure to timely challenge the omission ordinarily would result in waiver of the issues, unless the omission was so prejudicial to Miller’s rights that fundamental error resulted.”) (citations omitted). For error in a charging information to be fundamental, “it must mislead the defendant or fail to give him notice of the charges against him so that he is unable to prepare a defense to the accusation.” Id. at 61. Leggs did not argue he did not understand the charges against him or he was unable to formulate a defense. See Wine v. State, 637 N.E.2d 1369, 1374 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (no fundamental error where Wine did not demonstrate his defense was impeded by the inadequacy of the charging information), trans. denied. Thus, Leggs has not demonstrated fundamental error.

2. Sufficiency of Evidence — Intimidation

When reviewing sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, we consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the trial court’s decision. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind.2007). It is the fact-finder’s role, and not ours, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. Id. To preserve this structure, when we are confronted with conflicting evidence, we consider it most favorably to the trial court’s ruling. Id. We affirm a conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; rather, the evidence is sufficient if an inference reasonably may be drawn from it to support the trial court’s decision. Id. at 147.

Leggs argues the State did not prove he had “specific intent to place [Kimberly] in fear for trying to leave the residence,” (Br. of Appellant at 13), and Kimberly’s attempt to leave was not a prior lawful act as required by Ind.Code § 35-45-2-1. In support of his argument, Leggs relies on Casey v. State, in which we discussed the intent element of intimidation:

[I]t is apparent that the legislature intended to require the State to prove that the victim had engaged in a prior act, which was not contrary to law, and that the defendant intended to repay the victim for the prior lawful act.... [T]he State must establish that the legal act occurred prior to the threat and that the defendant intended to place the victim in fear of retaliation for that act.

676 N.E.2d 1069, 1072 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). Leggs asserts Kimberly’s attempt to leave the apartment was not a “prior lawful act” because it did not occur before he threatened to kill her. We disagree.

The State presented evidence Leggs told Kimberly she was “gonna die tonight,” (Tr. at 48), and then began stabbing in her direction. He then said, “You don’t love me like you used to.” (Id. at 51.) The State argues Leggs’ actions were retaliation for his perception of Kimberly’s feelings towards him, which was a lawful act. As this was a bench trial, we presume the judge knows and will follow the applicable law. Donaldson v. State, 904 N.E.2d 294, 300 (Ind.Ct.App.2009). The State’s argument reflects a reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence presented, and we hold the evidence was sufficient to convict Leggs of intimidation.

3. Enhancement for Use of Knife in the Commission of the Crimes

A defendant is subjected to double jeopardy “where a felony is elevated in class based on the same statutory factor and factual basis that was used to elevate another felony in class, [thus] the two cannot stand together and one must be reduced in class.” Pierce v. State, 761 N.E.2d 826, 830 (Ind.2002). Three of Leggs’ crimes, two counts of intimidation and one count of criminal confinement, were enhanced because he used a knife while committing each crime. Leggs argues use of the same evidence to enhance all three crimes subjected him to double jeopardy.

In Hancock v. State, 768 N.E.2d 880, 880 (Ind.2002), the trial court convicted Hancock of Class A felony rape and Class A felony criminal deviate conduct. Both crimes were enhanced because Hancock drugged the victim without the victim’s knowledge. Bancock was subjected to double jeopardy because evidence Hancock drugged the victim was used to enhance both crimes. Id. at 880. Likewise, in Pierce, our Indiana Supreme Court held the same bodily injury to the victim could not be used to enhance both the burglary and the robbery charges against Pierce. Pierce, 761 N.E.2d at 830.

The State asserts, citing Miller v. State, 790 N.E.2d 437, 439 (Ind.2003), “[t]he use of a ‘single deadly weapon’ during the commission of separate offenses may enhance the level of each offense.’” (Br. of Appellee at 16.) The Miller Court reasoned the repeated use of the same weapon to commit multiple crimes was not the “very same behavior” that would implicate double jeopardy. Miller, 790 N.E.2d at 439. In his concurring opinion, Justice Sullivan noted: “What justifies the multiple enhancements here is the repeated use of the knife by the defendant in committing crimes for which he was convicted.” Id. (Sullivan, J., concurring) (emphasis in original).

The facts of Hancock and Pierce are distinguishable from those in the instant case because our holdings were based on single instances of conduct-in Hancock, a single drugging the victim, and in Pierce, one instance of bodily injury. In contrast, Leggs used his knife first to stab at Kimberly’s face, then to stab her in the stomach, then to slash at her leg, and finally to hold her to the ground in their living room. We agree with the State’s assertion that Leggs “made a decision to involve his knife in each of his crimes ... [thus] each crime may be elevated based on the use of the same knife.” (Br. of Appellee at 17.) Leggs was not subjected to double jeopardy when he was convicted of multiple crimes enhanced by the use of a knife. See, e.g., Miller, 790 N.E.2d at 439 (repeated use of knife justified multiple enhancements to crimes committed).

4. Criminal Confinement Convictions

The continuing crime doctrine applies when actions “sufficient in themselves to constitute separate criminal offenses may be so compressed in terms of time, place, singleness of purpose, and continuity of action as to constitute a single transaction.” Firestone v. State, 838 N.E.2d 468, 471 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). In such circumstances, the State may convict the defendant of only one crime. Id. at 472.

In Boyd v. State, 766 N.E.2d 396, 400 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), we held: “[a] confinement ends when the victim feels, and is, in fact, free from detention and a separate confinement begins if and when detention of the victim is re-established.” Leggs contends, “from the time Leggs took away [Kimberly]’s purse and keys until the time he told her to open the door, there was no point at which she was ‘free from detention’ and free to leave the apartment.” (Br. of Appellant at 9.)

The State argues there were two separate instances of confinement. First, the State asserts, Kimberly was confined to the bedroom, and Leggs stabbed her there. She was able to leave the bedroom after biting Leggs, and the State contends the first instance of confinement ended at that time. The second confinement, the State asserts, began when Leggs prevented Kimberly from answering the door and indicated she would not leave the apartment alive. It ended when Leggs allowed Kimberly to open the door for the police. We disagree.

At trial, Kimberly testified after Leggs told her, “You’re gonna die today. I hate you[,]” he took her purse, keys, and cell phone from her. (Tr. at 48.) Leggs then pulled a knife out of his pocket and “pushed [Kimberly] — -jumped on top of [her] and pushed [her] back on the bed and just had the knife over [her] head.” (Id. at 50.) Kimberly testified Leggs began “doing weird stuff’ with the knife, such as “pretending like he was going to stick it up [her] nose, and then in [her] ear, and then at [her] temple.” (Id.) Leggs then stabbed Kimberly twice while they struggled on the bed, and she bit him.

After she bit him, Kimberly got up off the bed and pushed Leggs. She testified she was “running towards my bedroom door and he had the knife just kind of slashing it; caught me on the back of the leg a little bit and I ran down the hallway in my house into my dining room, there’s a little lamp and I hit him with the lamp.” (Id. at 51-52.) The State then asked Kimberly, when presenting a picture of the lamp for admission into evidence, “that’s the lamp you hit him with as you were trying to escape the apartment?” (Id. at 52-58.) Kimberly answered affirmatively, and then testified, “when I hit him with the lamp and we were kind of still struggling and I was still running — I wasn’t all the way — I wasn’t to my door, I was started (sic) trying to get to my door. I tried to get to the door.” (Id. at 58.)

Leggs then “pushed [Kimberly] back on the floor” and held her down. (Id. at 54.) While Leggs held Kimberly on the floor, the police knocked on the door. Kimberly asked who it was and testified she did not hear the response. After the response, Leggs “looked at [Kimberly] and he looked at the knife and he took and threw the knife and then he told [her] to open the door.” (Id. at 54-55.) Kimberly ran to the door, opened it, and told the police Leggs was trying to kill her. The police pursued and arrested Leggs, and called an ambulance for Kimberly.

Based on Kimberly’s testimony, there was never a time during the incident when she felt free to leave. The evidence does permit the inference the State invites us to draw that Kimberly felt unconfined when she was able to get up off the bed. However, she answered affirmatively when asked if she hit Leggs with a lamp after leaving the bedroom, while she was “trying to eseape[J” (Id. at 53.) Kimberly testified she was “trying to get to the door” while Leggs was chasing her through the apartment. (Id.) Leggs told Kimberly she was not going to leave the apartment alive and Leggs was going to kill her.

Kimberly’s testimony established the continuing nature of the crime, which took place over a short period of time, in the same apartment, with a single purpose— that Kimberly not leave the apartment alive. Kimberly did not feel free from confinement until she opened the door to the apartment; she testified she was trying to escape after leaving the bedroom, and her goal in escaping was to reach the apartment door. Therefore, Leggs’ two convictions of Class D criminal confinement violate the continuing crime doctrine, and one must be reversed. We remand for reversal of one of Leggs’ criminal con-fmement charges and resentencing.

CONCLUSION

Leggs waived his argument regarding the deficiencies in the charging information for Class C felony intimidation because he did not file a motion to dismiss the charges at the trial court level. Waiver notwithstanding, Leggs did not demonstrate the deficiencies in his charging information rose to the level of fundamental error. There was sufficient evidence Leggs committed Class C felony intimidation, and Leggs was not subjected to double jeopardy when his convictions for several crimes were enhanced by his repeated use of a knife.

However, Leggs’ two convictions of Class B felony criminal confinement violate the continuing crime doctrine. Accordingly, we reverse one of his criminal confinement convictions and remand for resentencing.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

MATHIAS, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.

      . Ind. Code § 3 5-42-3-3 (b)(2).

      . Ind. Code § 3 5-45-2-1 (b)(2).

      . Ind.Code§ 3 5-44-3-3.

      .We held oral argument on this matter on March 9, 2012, at Indiana University — Northwest in Gary, Indiana. We thank the University for their hospitality, and commend counsel on their presentations.

      . Ind.Code § 35-42-2-l(a)(3).

      . Ind.Code§ 35-42-2-1.3(a).

      . Ind.Code§ 35-42-2-1.3(b).

      . Ind.Code § 35-50-2-8.

      . The trial court already had merged the Class A misdemeanor domestic battery count into the Class D felony domestic battery count, which differed only by proof Leggs had previously been convicted of domestic battery. See Ind.Code § 35-42-2-1.3(b) (elevating the Class A misdemeanor to a Class D felony if the defendant had a prior conviction or committed the crime in front of a child under the age of sixteen).

      . Leggs argues his sentence was inappropriate based on the nature of his crime and his character. As we remand for resentencing, we do not address that allegation of error.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: MAY, Judge. RILEY, Judge,

license: Public Domain

text:
    BEI BEI SHUAI, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
    No. 49A02-1106-CR-486.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana.
    Feb. 8, 2012.

      Linda L. Perce, David J. Hensel, Pence Hensel LLC, Indianapolis, IN, Kathrine D. Jack, Law Office of Kathrine Jack, Greenfield, IN. Attorneys for Appellant.
    Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General, of Indiana, Ellen H. Meilaender, Deputy Attorney Genera], Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
    Monica Foster, Indianapolis, IN, Julie Cantor, MD, JD, Santa Monica, CA, for Amicus Curiae, Organizations and Individuals Committed To Education and Treatment for Perinatal Psychiatric Illness.
    Jennifer Lukemeyer, Voyles, Zahn, Paul, Hogan & Merriman, Indianapolis, IN, for Amicus Curiae, Legal Voice and Perinatal Loss Support Organizations and Experts.
    Jennifer Girod, David Orentilicher, Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman, P.C., Indianapolis, IN, for Amicus Curiae, American Association of Suicidology, et al.
    Sandra L. Blevins, Betz + Blevins, Indianapolis, IN, Jill C. Morrison, National Women’s Law Center, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae, National Organization for Women, Law Students For Reproductive Justice, National Women’s Law Center, and Sistersong Women of Color Justice Collective.
    Gavin M. Rose, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Indianapolis, IN, Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae, American Civil Liberties Union Indiana and American Civil Liberties Union.
   OPINION

MAY, Judge.

Bei Bei Shuai appeals the denial of her motion for bail and writ of habeas corpus (“the Bail Appeal”) and the denial of her motion to dismiss the charges against her (“the Dismissal Appeal”). She raises numerous issues, two of which we find dis-positive:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Shuai bail because the proof was evident and presumption was strong that she committed murder; and
2. Whether the trial court erred when it denied Shuai’s motion to dismiss.

We reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In December of 2010, Shuai was in the third trimester of a pregnancy that allegedly was the product of an affair with a married man, Zhiliang Guan. Guan broke off his relationship with Shuai that month, and she became distraught. Around the middle of the month, Shuai researched ways to commit suicide and decided she would ingest rat poison.

On December 21, Shuai bought rat poison. On December 23, when Shuai was thirty-three weeks pregnant, she wrote Guan, saying she felt she and the fetus were a burden on Guan, she had resolved to kill herself, and she was “taking this baby, the one you named Crystal, with [her].” (State’s Ex. 25 & 26.) Shuai then ingested rat poison. Shuai called Guan and told him she had ingested rat poison and was going to die.

Later that day, an anonymous caller asked police to conduct a welfare check on Shuai. When the officer arrived, Shuai insisted she was fíne and asked the officer to leave. She then went to the nearby home of her friend, Bing Mak. Mak noticed Shuai was acting strangely, but Shuai insisted nothing was wrong. Finally, Shuai admitted she had taken rat poison, and Mak took Shuai to the hospital for treatment.

On December 24, Shuai was transferred to Methodist Hospital. After she and the fetus were stabilized at Methodist, the doctors gave Shuai a steroid used to improve post-birth lung functioning of children who are born prematurely. Shuai immediately began having mild contractions, and doctors gave her indomethacin to stop the contractions.

On December 31, Dr. Claire Bernardin, an obstetrician, observed an unusual fetal heart rate and advised Shuai the fetus needed to be delivered immediately via caesarean section. Shuai consented, and the doctor delivered via caesarean section an infant Shuai named A.S. Hospital staff immediately transferred A.S. to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

While in the NICU, doctors found A.S. had a high International Normalized Ratio (INR), which indicated her blood could not clot. An ultrasound revealed A.S. had a bilateral Grade III intraventricular hemorrhage. A.S.’s condition steadily worsened. On January 3, 2011, Shuai consented to removing A.S. from life support, and A.S. died. Dr. Jolene Clouse, the forensic pathologist who performed A.S.’s autopsy, indicated on the coroner’s verdict report that A.S. died of “intracerebral hemorrhage due to maternal Coumadin ingestion[.]” (Defendant’s Ex. B.)

Shuai was released from the Methodist Psychiatric Unit on February 4, 2011, and returned to live with Mrs. Mak. On March 14, the State charged Shuai with murder, a felony, and Class B felony attempted feti-cide, and Shuai turned herself in on the same day. On March 22, Shuai filed a petition for reasonable bail and writ of habeas corpus, and on March 30, Shuai filed a motion to dismiss the charges against her.

The trial court held a hearing on her bail petition and denied it on June 6. It denied the motion to dismiss on June 20. On June 27, the trial court certified both orders for interlocutory appeal. We accepted jurisdiction on August 15. On Shuai’s motion, we ordered the Bail Appeal expedited. After examination of the Bail Appeal briefs, it became apparent the issues likely to be presented in the Dismissal Appeal would overlap significantly with those in the Bail Appeal. We accordingly reconsolidated the two appeals sua sponte and granted Shuai’s request for oral argument.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

1. Denial of Bail

Article 1, Section 17 of the Indiana Constitution recognizes the right to bail: “Offenses, other than murder and treason, shall be bailable by sufficient sureties. Murder or treason shall not be bailable, when the proof is evident, or the presumption is strong.” Indiana Code § 35-33-8-2(a) echoes that constitutional provision: “Murder is not bailable when the proof is evident or the presumption strong. In all other cases, offenses are bailable.” That language has been interpreted to imply a presumption that bail should not be granted in a murder case. Bozovichar v. State, 230 Ind. 358, 366, 103 N.E.2d 680, 683 (1952). “The burden is on the applicant to show that the proof is not evident or the presumption of guilt [not] strong.” Id. Thus, Shuai was required to demonstrate the State’s proof that she “did knowingly kill a fetus that had attained viability, namely: voluntarily ingested rat poison when approximately thirty-three (33) weeks pregnant causing [A.S.] to be born in distress and subsequently die[,]” (App. B at 330), was not evident and the presumption of her guilt thereof was not strong.

The trial court denied Shuai’s request for bail. When reviewing a trial court’s denial of bail in a murder case, we reverse only for an abuse of discretion. Rohr v. State, 917 N.E.2d 1277, 1280 (Ind. Ct.App.2009). A decision is an abuse of discretion when it “is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind.2007).

At the bail hearing, the State presented evidence Shuai ingested rat poison when she was thirty-three weeks pregnant. The Court admitted Shuai’s suicide note in which she documented her intention to kill herself and her fetus. The doctors who treated Shuai and A.S. both testified Shuai was admitted to the hospital after ingesting rat poison while thirty-three weeks pregnant; she responded well to treatment for the poisoning; A.S. was delivered via caesarean section with Shuai’s consent on December 31, 2010; A.S. suffered a bilateral Grade III intraventricular hemorrhage; and A.S. was removed from life support and subsequently died on January 3, 2011. The coroner indicated A.S.’s death was caused by an intraventricular hemorrhage due to Shuai’s ingestion of rat poison.

Shuai attempted to rebut the presumption she should not receive bail by offering evidence to support alternate explanations for the intraventricular hemorrhage that led to A.S.’s death. For example, Shuai presented evidence that indomethacin, one of the drugs given to Shuai to stop her contractions, can cause infants to have “in-traventricular hemorrhage.” (Tr. at 96.) Dr. Lorant, the neonatologist who treated A.S., also testified that a number of other conditions could have caused A.S.’s blood to not clot:

You know, had I not known about [Shuai] having — having taken the rat poisoning, I would’ve thought that the baby had an inherited like, hemophilia, a different — a factor deficiency. There would’ve been — I mean, hemophilia, the kind most people think of, is mostly in boys. But there are different types of factor deficiencies you can have that can affect coagulation. So there’s a lot of things.
The thing — that would’ve been one of the more common. If you’re infected, you can — or have any type of trauma, you can develop something called disseminated intravascular coagulation, and that makes the blood not clot. So there’s a lot of things that can cause the blood to have clotting issues.

(Id. at 419-20.)

In addition, Shuai presented evidence that called into question the credibility of the autopsy report produced by Dr. Clouse, the forensic pathologist who performed AS.’s autopsy. That report indicated, “Decedent was injured as a result of her mother ingesting an unknown brand of rat poisoning.” (Defendant’s Ex. A.) However, Shuai presented evidence that not only did Dr. Clouse fail to conduct any independent research about the effect of rat poison on a child, also she did not consider any other possible cause for A.S.’s intraventricular hemorrhage prior to listing rat poison as the cause of death. Moreover, Dr. Clouse testified she simply relied on the deputy coroner’s report in making her determination of AS.’s cause of death. Yet, Lloyd Sprowl, the deputy coroner, testified:

[Defense]: Now that statement [regarding the cause of A.S.’s death] in your report is not a — that was not within your personal knowledge. You were just repeating what someone had told you; is that correct?
[Sprowl]: Ye;;.
[Defense]: And you’re not medically trained to know whether or not rat poisoning would cause the demise of anybody?
[Sprowl]: That is correct.

(Tr. at 160.)

Finally, Shuai presented evidence Dr. Clouse submitted A.S.’s autopsy report before she received the toxicology report that would indicate if the chemicals from the rat poison were in A.S.’s body. When discussing the toxicology report, Dr. Clouse testified:

[Defense]: So what does this — does [this] blood test tell you anything that connects the brain bleed to the rat poisoning?
[Clouse]: No. And it’s also a little bit difficult to assess because the baby had received so many blood transfusions that this test, you know, reflects partially the blood that she was given.

(Id. at 70-71.)

After the parties presented evidence at a hearing, the trial court found: “Based upon the evidence presented, the Court finds the proof of guilt is evident and the presumption of guilt is strong.” (App. B at 537) (emphasis in original). The court therefore denied Shuai’s request to be released on bail. We disagree with the trial court’s decision. The defense presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that Shuai is guilty, and the trial court therefore abused its discretion by denying Shuai’s motion for bail. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for determination of bail.

2. Motion to Dismiss

Generally, we review the denial of a motion to dismiss for an abuse of discretion, McCown v. State, 890 N.E.2d 752, 756 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), while taking the facts stated in the charging information as true. Delagrange v. State, 951 N.E.2d 593, 594 (Ind.Ct.App.2011). However, when, as here, the denial rests on the trial court’s interpretation of a statute, we review the judgment de novo as a question of law. McCown, 890 N.E.2d at 756.

Shuai’s motion to dismiss asserted the information was defective because:

a. The Information does not state the offenses with sufficient certainty;
b. Both Counts [sic] One and Count Two fail to recite facts that constitute an offense, and must be dismissed under I.C. § 35-34-1-4(a)(5);
c. The statutes defining murder and feticide, as applied to this Defendant, are unconstitutional and the Information is defective and otherwise invalid as a matter of law, and must be dismissed under I.C. 35-34-1 — 4(a)(1); and I.C. 35-34-1-6; and,

d. The Defendant has immunity with respect to the alleged charges and thus the Information must be dismissed pursuant to I.C. 34-1-4-6 [sic].

(App. B at 84) (footnotes added). We address each contention in turn.

A. Charging Information

The purpose of an information is to advise the defendant of the crime with which she is charged so she can prepare a defense. Myers v. State, 510 N.E.2d I860, 1367 (Ind.1987). The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 13 of the Indiana Constitution require a defendant be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation. In accordance therewith, the State’s charging information must be in writing, “setting forth the nature and elements of the offense charged in plain and concise language without unnecessary repetition.” Ind.Code § 35 — 34—1—2(a)(4). The charging information should state the accusations against the defendant in the language of the statute or in words that convey a similar meaning. Smith v. State, 465 N.E.2d 702, 704 (Ind.1984), reh’g denied. Minor variances from the language of the statute do not make an information defective, as long as the defendant is not misled or an essential element of the crime is not omitted. Id. In her original motion, Shuai alleged the charging information for both charges against her was defective. However in her appeal, her argument addresses only the charging information for murder. Thus we address only that charge.

The State charged Shuai with murder pursuant to Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1(4), which defines murder as “knowingly or intentionally killing] a fetus that has attained viability (as defined in IC 16-18-2-365).” The State’s charging information indicated: “COUNT I [:] Bei Bei Shuai, on or about December 23, 2010, did knowingly kill a fetus that had attained viability, namely: voluntarily ingested rat poison when approximately thirty-three (33) weeks pregnant causing [A.S.] to be born in distress and subsequently die[.]”

Shuai argues the facts alleged in the information do not comport with any alleged actions she took. First, no victim died on December 23, 2010; A.S. died on January 3, 2011. Shuai argues no “viable fetus” died because A.S. was born alive on December 31, 2010, at which time she was no longer a fetus and had instead become a “human being.” See Ind.Code § 35-41-1-14 (defining “human being” as “an individual who has been born and is alive.”)

The State argues Shuai’s contention no “viable fetus” died is inconsistent with case law that statutes are not to be interpreted in a manner that brings about an absurd or unjust result. See Glotzbach v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1221, 1227 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (“The legislature is presumed to have intended that language used in the statute be applied logically and not bring about an unjust or absurd result.”). The State asserts:

The injury that was the cause of death was inflicted on a fetus, even if that end result was not consummated until after she was born alive through an emergency C-section. It would be an extraordinarily absurd and unfair result to suggest that a person is-liable for murder if she inflicts a fatal injury on a baby that is still in the womb and doctors do nothing to save the fetus, allowing it to die in the womb, but that she is immune from liability if doctors deliver the baby to try to save its life but are ultimately unsuccessful. Defendant should not be given immunity simply because doctors tried to save her baby’s life.

(Br. B of Appellee at 27.)

The State also contends that even though A.S.’s birth changed her legal status from “viable fetus” to “human being,” it was Shuai’s actions that caused AS.’s death. Therefore, the date she ingested rat poison should have no bearing on how Shuai is charged or prosecuted.

The State, to prove causation, need only prove the injury inflicted “contributed mediately or immediately” to the victim’s death. Sims v. State, 466 N.E.2d 24, 25 (Ind.1984). Even if there was an intervening cause of the victim’s death, it does not absolve the defendant of murder unless that intervening cause was so extraordinary and unforeseeable that it would be unfair to hold the defendant responsible. Id. The State notes Indiana courts have consistently upheld murder convictions even when a victim died from complications due to surgery or other medical care received for the injury the defendant inflicted on him. See, e.g., Wooley v. State, 716 N.E.2d 919, 928 (Ind.1999) (that second person attacked victim did not absolve defendant of responsibility for victim’s death when autopsy determined victim died of stab wound inflicted by defendant), reh’g denied; Pittman v. State, 528 N.E.2d 67, 69-70 (Ind.1988) (even though victim ultimately died from pulmonary embolism, Pittman was still guilty of murder because he inflicted a stab wound that contributed to the blood clots that eventually killed the victim); and Gibson v. State, 515 N.E.2d 492, 496 (Ind.1987) (Gibson was guilty of murder because victim died of staph infection he would not have contracted but for the injuries Gibson inflicted). Thus, the State asserts, the reference to A.S. as a “viable fetus” rather than a “human being” does not render the charging information defective.

We agree with the State. The State, at trial, will have the burden of proving every element of its case. Moon v. State, 828 N.E.2d 710, 714 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (“It is well settled that the State has the burden of proving all elements of a charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”), reh’g denied, trans. denied. The classification of A.S. in the information sufficiently apprises Shuai of the charges against her.

B. Statutory Interpretation

When faced with a question of statutory interpretation, our review is de novo. In re M.W., 913 N.E.2d 784, 786 (Ind.Ct.App.2009). In interpreting a statute, we first decide if the statute is ambiguous. Id. If it is not, we need not and do not interpret it, but instead apply its plain and clear meaning. Id. If the statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous, and we must determine the legislature’s intent so that we can give effect to that intent. Maroney v. State, 849 N.E.2d 745, 748 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006). Statutes must be read in harmony with related statutes. St. Margaret Mercy Healthcare Ctrs., Inc. v. Poland, 828 N.E.2d 396, 402 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied. We assume the legislature intended for the statutory language to be applied in a logical manner consistent with the statute’s underlying policy and goals. B.K.C. v. State, 781 N.E.2d 1157, 1167 (Ind.Ct.App.2003).

“It is a cardinal rule of criminal justice, however, that penal statutes are to be strictly construed against the State and that ambiguities therein are to be resolved in favor of the accused.” Pennington v. State, 426 N.E.2d 408, 410 (Ind. 1981). Nor may criminal statutes “be enlarged by construction, implication, or in-tendment beyond the fair meaning of the language used.” Herron v. State, 729 N.E.2d 1008, 1010 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trams, denied. However, penal statutes are not to be read so narrowly as to exclude instances the statute fairly covers or in a manner that disregards legislative purposes and intent. B.K.C., 781 N.E.2d at 1167.

The murder statute states, in relevant part, “A person who: (1) knowingly or intentionally kills another human being; ... [or] (4) knowingly or intentionally kills a fetus that has attained viability (as defined in IC 16-18-2-365), commits murder.” Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1. A person engages in conduct “intentionally” if, “when he engages in the conduct, it is his conscious objective to do so.” Ind.Code § 35-41-2-2(a). A person engages in conduct “knowingly” if, “when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so.” Ind.Code § 35-41-2-2(b). A fetus has attained viability when it has the ability “to live outside the mother’s womb.” Ind.Code § 16-18-2-365.

The feticide statute states, in relevant part:

A person who knowingly or intentionally terminates a human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus commits feticide, a Class B felony. This section does not apply to an abortion performed in compliance with:
(1) IC 16-34; or
(2) IC 35-1-58.5 (before its repeal)

Ind.Code § 35-42-1-6.

Shuai argues the plain language of both the murder and feticide statutes “[Does] Not Apply to Pregnant Women in Relation to the Fetuses They Carry.” (Br. D of Appellant at 15.) The question whether the murder and feticide statutes can be applied to a woman in Shuai’s situation is one of first impression in Indiana. Shuai asserts in order for our murder and feti-cide statutes to include pregnant women, the language would have to do so explicitly because the relationship between a mother and the fetus she carries is unique and “fundamentally and profoundly different from third-party attacks on pregnant women[.]” (Br. D of Appellant at 16.) In support of that argument, Shuai directs us to Herron, 729 N.E.2d at 1011, in which we rejected the State’s argument that a mother could be prosecuted for neglect of a dependent based on acts committed prior to the birth of the child that ultimately endanger the child after birth.

Herron ingested cocaine while pregnant. We determined the plain language of the neglect of a dependent statute contemplated “only acts that place one who is a dependent at the time of the conduct at issue in a dangerous situation — not acts that place a future dependent in a dangerous situation.” Id. Further, we held the applicable statute does not “criminalize conduct that occurs prior to a child’s birth.” Id. ‘When Indiana’s General Assembly has previously sought to criminalize conduct affecting unborn children, it has done so specifically.” Id. at 1010.

The State argues the statute need not explicitly prohibit a pregnant woman from committing an act against her own fetus. It asserts the result in Herron was controlled by the statutory definition of “dependent,” whicli prohibited the State from prosecuting Herron for acts committed before the child was born. There, we distinguished the language of the murder and feticide statutes from that of the neglect statute. Thus, the State contends, Herron is of no relevance to Shuai’s argument because its holding falls under a different definitional structure.

We decline to adopt Shuai’s argument the murder statute is ambiguous as applied to her. The State alleged the existence of facts that could satisfy the elements of murder: Shuai is a “person,” the State alleged she intended to kill A.S. by virtue of Shuai’s mention of the fetus in the suicide note, and the victim was an entity protected under the murder statute, be it a “viable fetus” or “human being,” died. Nor can we find the feticide statute ambiguous as applied here, as it is undisputed Shuai’s pregnancy was terminated when A.S. was born, and the State seems prepared to argue it was Shuai’s intent to end her pregnancy when she ingested rat poison.

C. Immunity from Prosecution

First, Shuai contends the charges against her arise out of a suicide attempt and as suicide is not a crime but a public health issue, the charges against her should be dismissed. In Prudential v. Rice, 222 Ind. 231, 238, 52 N.E.2d 624, 626 (1944), our Indiana Supreme Court recognized attempting suicide is not a crime.

The State argues Shuai’s charges are based not on her conduct toward herself, but on her conduct towards A.S. The State offers this analogy:

If a person tries to commit suicide by turning on the gas in her apartment or running her car over a cliff, she may be charged with murder if she survives but a roommate in the apartment or a passenger in the car dies, especially where, as here, there is evidence that the person intended for the roommate or passenger to also die.

(Br. D of Appellee at 20.) The State also argues the record does not support Shuai’s characterization of A.S.’s death as an unintended consequence of a suicide attempt. Rather, the State asserts, Shuai’s note to Guan indicates she had intent to kill A.S. independent of her intent to kill herself. We agree. Shuai’s suicide note, which was addressed to Guan, demonstrates suicide was not her only intended result and, as such we cannot hold she is being improperly prosecuted for her suicide attempt.

Shuai next argues that, at common law, “a pregnant woman was not subjected to criminal prosecution relating to her ‘acts’ alleged to have harmed her fetus.” (Br. B of Appellant at 36.) As in her statutory interpretation argument, Shuai contends the legislature is therefore required to expressly include pregnant women as possible perpetrators in the elements of the murder and feticide statutes. See Caesar’s Riverboat Casino, LLC v. Kephart, 934 N.E.2d 1120, 1123 (Ind.2010) (“there is a presumption that the legislature does not intend to make any change in the common law beyond those declared in either express terms or by unmistakable implication”).

We recognize English common law unless our legislature explicitly abrogates it: [t]he law governing this state is declared to be:

First. The Constitution of the United States and of this state.
Second. All statutes of the general assembly of the state in force, and not inconsistent with such constitutions. Third. All statutes of the United States in force, and relating to subjects over which congress has power to legislate for the states, and not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States. Fourth. The common law of England, and statutes of the British Parliament made in aid thereof prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First (except the second section of the sixth chapter of forty-third Elizabeth, the eighth chapter of thirteenth Elizabeth, and the ninth chapter of thirty-seventh Henry the Eighth,) and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom, and not inconsistent with the first, second and third specifications of this section.

Ind.Code § 1 — 1—2—1 (footnote omitted). Pursuant to that hierarchy of laws, common law is the governing law of our state only if the common law is from England during the periods enumerated in the statute. Shuai does not indicate the specific English common law that recognized such broad immunity for a pregnant woman who committed acts that harmed her fetus.

Other states have advanced this common law immunity for pregnant women, but have not cited a specific English common law supporting their positions. For example, Florida’s supreme court stated:

At common law an operation on the body of a woman quick with child, with intent thereby to cause her miscarriage, was an indictable offense, but it was not an offense in her to so treat her own body, or to assent to such treatment from another; and the aid she might give to the offender in the physical performance of the operation did not make her an accomplice in his crime. The practical assistance she might thus give to the perpetrator did not involve her in the perpetration of his crime. It was in truth a crime which, in the nature of things, she could not commit.

State v. Ashley, 701 So.2d 388, 340 (Fla. 1997) (quoting State v. Carey, 76 Conn. 342, 56 A. 632, 636 (1904)). See also Hillman v. State, 232 Ga.App. 741, 503 S.E.2d 610, 612 (1998) (“[t]he female upon whom a criminal abortion has been performed is not an accomplice with the perpetrator of the offense, as she can not be indicted for that offense”) (quoting Gullatt v. State, 14 Ga.App. 53, 80 S.E. 340, 341 (1913), reh’g denied).

Legal scholars have opined:

While some scholars argue that paternalism regarding women in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is the primary root of this immunity, the early procedural practicalities of prosecuting abortions were a contributing factor. In order to convict an abortionist, it was almost always necessary for prosecutors to present the testimony of the woman. In labeling the participating woman as an accomplice to the crime, the prosecution would have been required to adduce corroborating testimony to convict the defendant. By the very nature of performing abortions, particularly illegal ones, the availability of other witnesses would have been unusual, thereby making prosecution under abortion statutes effectively impossible. To avoid this obstacle, courts defined the female undergoing illegal abortion as a victim or simply declared that there was no accomplice.

Staci Visser, Prosecuting Women for Participating in Illegal Abortions: Undermining Gender Equality and the Effectiveness of State Police Power, 13 Journal of Law & Family Studies 171, 175 (2011).

The only English common law that addresses the death of a fetus is stated by Lord Coke:

If a woman be quick with childe, and by a potion or otherwise killeth it in her wombe, or if a man beat her, whereby the childe dyeth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead childe, this is a great misprision, and no murder; but if the childe be born alive and dyeth of the potion, battery, or other cause, this is murder[.]

Coke, Edward, The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England: Concerning High Treason, and Other Pleas of the Crown, and Criminal Causes, page 50 (1680).

As the only original statement of English common law we obtained regarding this question contradicts Shuai’s allegation that women had absolute immunity, Ind. Code § 1 — 1—2—1 does not require us to adopt her premise a pregnant woman has complete common law immunity from prosecution for actions she commits against her own fetus. We therefore decline to do so.

Because the charging information was not deficient, the plain language of the statute applies to Shuai’s actions, and Shuai has not demonstrated common law immunity for pregnant women who harm their own fetuses, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Shuai’s motion to dismiss. We accordingly affirm that denial.

CONCLUSION

Because Shuai rebutted the presumption of guilt required to hold her without bail, we reverse the denial of her motion for bail and remand for determination of the amount of bail. However, as the charging information was sufficient to apprise Shuai of the charges against her, the murder statute is unambiguous and its plain language encompasses her alleged actions, and she does not have immunity from prosecution, we affirm the denial of her motion to dismiss and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.

NAJAM, J., concurs.

RILEY J., concurs in part and dissents in part with separate opinion.

RILEY, Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

While I agree with the majority’s decision to reverse and remand for determination of Shuai’s bail, I respectfully disagree with its denial of Shuai’s motion to dismiss. Based on the facts and charging information before me, I would dismiss both the murder and attempted feticide Counts as charged by the State.

A charging information must allege the elements of the crime such that the accused is sufficiently apprised of the nature of the charges against him so that he may anticipate the proof and prepare a defense in advance of trial. Zitlaw v. State, 880 N.E.2d 724, 730 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. denied. To further this end, the information must be in writing and allege the commission of an offense by setting forth the nature and elements of the offense charged in plain and concise language without unnecessary Repetition. Truax v. State, 856 N.E.2d 116, 123 (Ind.Ct.App.2006). A trial court considering a motion to dismiss an indictment or information in a criminal case need not rely entirely on the text of the charging information but can hear and consider evidence in determining whether a defendant can be charged with the crime alleged. Zitlaw, 880 N.E.2d at 730.

Here, as noted by the majority, the State charged Shuai with murder by killing a viable fetus on December 23, 2010, by ingesting rat poison when she was approximately thirty-three weeks pregnant, causing A.S. to be born in distress and subsequently die, pursuant to I.C. § 35-42-1-1(4). In Count II, Shuai was charged with attempted feticide because she knowingly terminated a human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus, in accordance with I.C. §§ 35-^42 — 1—6; 35-41-5-1. To determine whether Shuai was charged appropriately, as concluded by the majority, I am faced with a question of statutory interpretation.

Interpretation of a statute is a pure question of law and is reviewed de novo. Herron v. State, 729 N.E.2d 1008, 1010 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied.’ The primary goal in interpreting the meaning of a statute is to determine and effectuate legislative intent. Id. We therefore look to the plain language of the statute and attribute the common, ordinary meaning to terms found in everyday speech. Id. Where the General Assembly has defined a word, however, this court is bound by that definition. Id. Moreover, it just as important to recognize what a statute does not say as it is to recognize what it does say. Id. A court may not read into a statute that which is not the expressed intent of the legislature. Id. Most importantly, criminal statutes cannot be enlarged by construction, implication, or in-tendment beyond the fair meaning of the language used , and should be strictly construed against the State. Id. Even though an act may fall, within the spirit of the statute, it will not constitute a crime unless it is also within the words of the statute. Id.

A. General Legislative History

Prior to 1980, the Homicide laws included, in this order, the following categories: (1)murder; (2) causing suicide; (3) voluntary manslaughter; (4) involuntary manslaughter; (5) reckless homicide; and (6) feticide. The first five statutes in the Homicide chapter focused on a person knowingly or intentionally killing another human being, vdth “human being” defined by I.C. § 35-41-1-14 as “an individual who has been born and is alive.” The sixth statute — feticide—was viewed as an extension of the laws of Homicide to cover the situation in which the victim is not a “human being,” but a fetus. See Baird v. State, 604 N.E.2d 1170, 1189 (Ind.1992). Consistent with this grouping of Homicide laws, our courts have applied the feticide statute in cases where third-parties harm pregnant women and cause death to the fetus they carry. See id.; see also Perigo v. State, 541 N.E.2d 936 (Ind.1989) (defendant beat his pregnant girlfriend, killing her and her fetus).

In 1997, in response to the highly publicized shooting of a pregnant woman resulting in the stillborn birth of her eight-and-a-half month old fetus, the legislature made changes to several Indiana statutes while, at the same time, it left the eighteen-year-old feticide statute intact. See P.L. 261-1997. During this round of statutory revisions, the legislature focused on the murder statute and added a new subsection 4 which covered the murder of a viable fetus: As such, the revised murder statute read as follows:

A person who:

(1) knowingly or intentionally kills another human being;
(2) kills another human being while committing, or attempting to commit arson, burglary, child molesting, consumer product tampering, criminal deviate con- ■ duct, kidnapping, rape, robbery, human trafficking, promotion of human trafficking, sexual trafficking of a minor, or carjacking;
(3) kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit:
(A) dealing in or manufacturing cocaine or a narcotic drug (I.C. § 35-48-4-1);
(B) dealing in or manufacturing methamphetamine (I.C. § 35-48-4-1.1);
(C) dealing in a schedule I, II, or III • controlled substance (I.C. § 35-48-4- ■ ¾;
(D) dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance (I.C. § 35-48^-3); or
(E) dealing in a schedule V controlled substance or
(4) knowingly or intentionally kills a fetus that has attained viability; commits murder, a felony.

I.C. § 35-42-1-1. Likewise, 'both the manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter statutes were amended to include the killing of a viable fetus. See I.C. §§ 35-42-1-3; -4. In each statute, viability was defined as “the ability of a fetus to live outside the mother’s womb.” I.C. § 16-18-2-365. The legislature also revised the aggravated battery statute to include the circumstance when battery results in the “loss of a fetus,” as a Class B felony. I.C. § 35-42-2-1.5(c).

Approximately ten years later, in April of 2008, a bank robber shot bank teller Katherine Shuffield, who was then five months pregnant with twins, resulting in the twins’ death. The State presented a proposal to the legislature to amend Indiana’s murder statute by removing the requirement of viability, thereby allowing a third-party to be prosecuted for the death of a fetus at any stage of its development. Refusing to change the murder statute as requested, the legislature responded by amending the feticide statute instead, changing its status from a Class C felony to a Class B felony and thus substantially increasing the crime’s sentence.

B. Application

1. Murder

Now, for the first time in Indiana’s history, and without any notice whatsoever, the State decided to prosecute a woman for murder of her child based on her conduct during her pregnancy. According to the charges brought by the State, Shuai, when thirty-three weeks pregnant, knowingly or intentionally killed a viable fetus on December 23, 2010, by ingesting rat poison, pursuant to I.C. § 35-42-1-1(4). However, the facts reflect that on December 23, 2010, Shuai did not kill a viable fetus; rather, she gave birth to A.S. on December 31, 2010. The State did not present any evidence that Shuai did anything to endanger A.S. after her birth. A.S. died on January 3, 2011. The State now contends that the categories of “viable fetus” and “another human being,” as both are defined in the murder statute, can be used interchangeably with the focus being on Shuai’s actions, not A.S.’s legal status.

Whenever Indiana’s General Assembly sought to criminalize conduct affecting unborn children, it did so specifically. As noted above, prior to 1997, a defendant could only murder “another human being;” with “human being” defined as “an individual who has been born and is alive.” See § 35-41-1-14. In 1997, the legislature opted to extend the statute to the case of the unborn child, and did so by creating a new category of murder victims. Rather than to redefine the term of “human being” to include a fetus, the legislature in a new fourth category declared murder to include the killing of a viable fetus. Nowhere in Indiana’s laws is the term “human being” or “person” used as a substitute for, or as inclusive of, a conceptas or fetus (be it viable or non-viable). Therefore, I conclude that when the legislature determines to confer legal personality on a fetus for certain limited purposes, it expresses that intent in specific, explicit, and appropriate terms; the corollary, of course, is that when the legislature speaks generally of a human being or person, it impliedly but plainly excludes a fetus. By arguing that A.S.’s legal status as a viable fetus and as a human being are interchangeable, the State disregards legislative reality and impermissibly attempts to enlarge the murder statute. I conclude that by charging Shuai with the intentional killing of a viable fetus, the State failed to establish the essential element of that crime, i.e., that A.S. was a viable fetus. Rather, because Shuai gave birth to A.S., a human being who lived until January 3, 2011, the murder charge should be dismissed.

2. Attempted Feticide

In Count II, the State charged Shuai with attempted feticide because she tried to “knowingly terminate a human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus” when she ingested rat poison, a Class B felony. See I.C. § 35-42-1-6; 35-41-5-1. As noted above, throughout its history, Indiana courts have applied the feticide statute to situations where a third party killed a non-viable fetus. In effect, the current feticide statute was enacted as a reaction to the killing of non-viable twin fetuses by a bank robber. The State now urges us to apply the feticide statute to a pregnant woman’s prenatal conduct.

In 1835, Indiana enacted a statute relating to the procurement of a miscarriage which targeted third parties who cause a woman to miscarry. See Ind.Rev.Stat. Ch. XXVI, § 3, p. 224 (1838). Fifty years later, in 1881, a misdemeanor statute was enacted directed specifically at pregnant women, which provided that

Every woman who shall solicit of any person any medicine, drug, or substance or thing whatever, and shall take the same, or shall submit to any operation or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure a miscarriage, except when by a physician for the purpose of saving the life of mother or child, shall be fined not more than $500 nor less than ten dollars, and imprisoned in the county jail not more than twelve months or less than 30 days, and any person who in any manner whatever unlawfully aids or assists any such woman to be a violation of this section, shall be liable to the same penalty.

1894 Ind. Acts, ch. 651, § 1997. Significantly, even with the possibility of holding a woman criminally liable for her own prenatal conduct which procured a miscarriage, the misdemeanor statute was only applied to third parties who performed or procured the miscarriage. In 1977, both miscarriage statutes were repealed.

The only recent Indiana case in which the State has charged a pregnant woman for prenatal conduct which endangered her unborn child was in the realm of neglect of a dependent. In Herron, the State unsuccessfully prosecuted a woman for ingesting cocaine during her pregnancy, which caused harm to her child after his birth. Herron v. State, 729 N.E.2d 1008, 1009 (Ind.App.2000), trans. denied. We rejected the State’s argument and found that the plain language of neglect of a dependent statute contemplated “only acts that place one who is a dependant at the time of the conduct at issue in a dangerous situation— not acts that place a future dependent in a dangerous situation.” Id. at 1011. The Herron court concluded that the applicable statutes “do not criminalize conduct that occurs prior to a child’s birth.” Id.

The State now applies the feticide statute in an end-run around the abolished miscarriage statutes and Herron’s conclusion in an attempt to criminalize the prenatal behavior of a pregnant woman. In light of Indiana’s long-standing statutory and case law history, I conclude that it was never the intention of the legislature that the feticide statute should be used to criminalize prenatal conduct of a pregnant woman. Rather, the statute should only be applied to third-party conduct which endangers or harms a non-viable fetus. Moreover, it is axiomatic that courts are obligated to avoid construing a particular statute so as to achieve an absurd or unreasonable result. If the feticide statute is interpreted as advocated by the State and applied to women’s prenatal conduct, it could have an unlimited scope and create an indefinite number of new ‘crimes.’ For example, many over-the counter cold remedies and sleep aids contain warnings that pregnant women should not use them without medical supervision, yet doing so cannot constitute a crime. It is also common knowledge that smoking and alcohol use during pregnancy may cause harm to the fetus. It is illogical to punish such prenatal behavior to the exclusion of other behaviors, if the focus is on resulting harm to the fetus. In short, the State’s interpretation might lead to a slippery slope whereby the feticide statute could be construed as covering a full range of a pregnant woman’s behavior. Courts must construe statutes with an eye toward reason and logic and dictated by legislative intent. Here, by condoning the State’s argument, the majority fails to do so.

Finally, I am mindful that it is not the purpose of the court to make legislation in the guise of judicial interpretation or construction. Whether to impose a legal duty or obligation on a pregnant woman to her unborn child and the extent of that obligation is a matter only for the legislature and is to be made after thorough investigative study and debate of all the implications of its decision.

I would dismiss both charges.

      .Although we need not address them herein, the other issues raised by Shuai include the following:

        Issues Presented in Both Appeals

      1. Whether the language of Indiana’s murder and feticide statutes is ambiguous;
      2. Whether Indiana’s murder statute is unconstitul ional because it:
      a. is void for vagueness;
      b. violates Shuai’s due process rights;
      c. violates Shuai's right to equal protection; and
      d. subjects Shuai to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution- and Article 1, Section 16 of the Indiana Constitution.
      3. Whether Shuai's actions constitute a crime; and
      4. Whether the State’s charging information is deficient.

        Issues Presented only in Bail Appeal

      1. Whether the State illegally seized Shuai's medical records;
      2. Whether the evidence the State used to demonstrate the cause of A.S.'s death was admissible under the test for expert testimony as set forth in Daubert v. Mer-rell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); and
      3. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence Shuai acted with malicious intent.

        Issue Presented only in Dismissal Appeal

      1. Whether Indiana's murder statute unconstitutionally violates Shuai's right to privacy.

      . An intraventricular hemorrhage is "bleeding inside or around the ventricles, the spaces in the brain containing cerebral spinal fluid.” Intraventricular Hemorrhage, http://www.lpch. org/DiseaseHealthlnfo/HealthLibrary/neuro/ ivh.html (last accessed December 27, 2011). "Bilateral” indicates the hemorrhage affected "the right and left members” of the brain. Bilateral — Medical Definition, http://www. memam-webster.com/medical/bilateral (last accessed December 27, 2011).

      .Coumadin, hydroxycoumarin, and brodifac-oum are variants of the anticoagulant warfa-rin, which can be found in rat poison. (See Tr. at 75 ("... the mother had ingested Coumadin — the rat poison”).) (See also Id. at 87-88 (“[Defense]: Now, are you aware that rat poisoning no longer has coumarin in it? [Clouse]: I believe it has hydroxycoumarin. [Defense]: And does that go by other names? [Clouse]: Yeah, I believe it’s brodifacoum — or brodifacoum.”).) See also “Coumadin Oral” at http://www.webmd.com/drugs/drug-4069-Coumadin + Oral.aspx?drugid=4069 & drug-name=Coumadin+Oral & source=l (last accessed December 27, 2011).

      . Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1.

      . Ind.Code § 35-42-1-6 (feticide); Ind.Code § 35-41-5-1.

      . We held oral argument in the Supreme Court Courtroom at the Indiana State House on December 13, 2011, and we thank counsel for their excellent advocacy.

      . There is a separate appendix for each of Shuai’s appeals. We cite the appendix for the Bail Appeal as “App. B” and the appendix for the Dismissal Appeal as “App. D.”

      . Shuai also argues the trial court erred in admitting Shuai’s medical and psychiatric records and Dr. Clouse’s testimony. The parties signed a "Joint Submission Regarding Motion to Dismiss and Suppression Motions,” (App. B at 542), in which they agreed: "All suppression, expert qualifications, and other evidentiary mo'ions and issues shall be heard following inter ocutory appeal of the motion to dismiss, if necessary." (Id.) Thus, the issue is not properly before us.

      . Ind.Code § 3 5 — 34—1—4(a)(5) allows the trial court to dismiss the charges against a deten-dant if the "facts stated do not constitute an offense.”

      .Ind.Code § 35-34-l-4(a)(l) allows the trial court to dismiss the charges against a defendant if the “indictment or information, or any count thereof, is defective under section 6 of this chapter.” Ind.Code § 35-34-1-6 indicates an "indictment or information is defective when: ... (3) the statute defining the offense charged is unconstitutional or otherwise invalid” and a motion is filed to that effect.

      . This is presumably a reference to Ind.Code § 35-34-l-4(a)(6), which allows the trial court to dismiss the charges against a defendant if the defendant “has immunity with respect to the offense charged.”

      . The Indiana Code does not appear to define “fetus.” Stedman's Medical Dictionary defines fetus as "the product of conception from the end of the eighth week to the moment of birth.” Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 573 (William R. Hensyl, et al. eds., 25th ed., 1990).

      . As there are two sets of briefs in this case, the briefs from the Dismissal Appeal will be indicated as "D” in all citations thereto, and the briefs from the Bail Appeal will be indicated as "B” in all citations thereto.

      . We need not decide at this stage of the case whether A.S. was a viable fetus when she allegedly was murdered, as it is the State's burden to prove at trial A.S.'s legal status. See Moon v. St ite, 823 N.E.2d 710, 714 (Ind. Ct.App.2005) ("It is well settled that the State has the burden of proving all elements of a charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”), reh’g denied, irons, denied.

      . Shuai also rrgues the murder and feticide statutes are unconstitutional as applied to her. As we may resolve the issue based on the plain language of the statute, we need not address her constitutional arguments. See Brownsburg Area Patrons Affecting Change v. Baldwin, 714 M.E.2d 135, 139 (Ind.1999) ("If a statute is unambiguous, then ‘courts must apply the plain language ... despite perhaps strong policy o" constitutional reasons to construe the statute in some other way.’ ”) (quoting Brownsburt Area Patrons Affecting Change v. Baldwin, 943 F.Supp. 975, 986 (S.D.Ind. 1996)).
      The dissent maintains “Now, for the first time in Indiana’s history, without any notice whatsoever, the State decided to prosecute a woman for mir'der of her child based on her conduct during the pregnancy.” (Op. at 634.) The dissent rejects the State's argument that "viable fetus” and "human being” may be used interchar geably, stating, "By arguing that A.S.’s legal status as a viable fetus and as a human being are interchangeable, the State disregards legislative reality and impermissi-bly attempts to enlarge the murder statute.” (Id.) As noted above, it is the State’s burden to prove all elements of its case, and it should be given the opportunity to do so without the intervention of a reviewing court prior to trial.
      Regarding the application of the feticide statute to Shuai's actions, the dissent suggests: In light of Indiana's long-standing statutory and case law history, I conclude that it was never the intention of the legislature that the feticide statute should be used to criminalize prenatal conduct of a pregnant woman. Rather, the statute should be applied to third-party conduct which harms or endangers a non-viable fetus. Moreover, it is axiomatic that courts are obligated to avoid construing a particular statute so as to achieve an absurd or unreasonable result.

        (Id. at 635-36.) However, we agree with the State that the more absurd result would be criminal liability for a pregnant woman who harms her fetus but lets it die in the womb, but immunity for a pregnant woman who harms her fetus and allows medical intervention that is ultimately unsuccessful and results in the child’s death. As illustrated from this panel's diverging opinions, it is possible the language of the statute could lead to many possibly absurd outcomes.

      . This same premise is suggested in Ashley Gorski, The Author of Her Trouble: Abortion in Nineteeth- and Early Twentieth-Century Judicial Discourses, 32 Harv. J.L. & Gender 431, 443-44 (2009).

      . The dissent believes holding Shuai's actions are covered by the feticide statute would result in the criminalization of pregnant women who smoke, drink, or take "over-the counter (sic) cold remedies and sleep aids.” (Op. at 636.) However, the feticide statute provides the actor must terminate a human pregnancy knowingly, with the "intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus.” Ind.Code § 35-42-1-6. Thus, the hypothetical situations the dissent presents would not be criminalized unless the additional element of intent was present. There is evidence Shuai had such intent.

      . While the majority claims that Shuai "only argues for the dismissal of the murder charge in her appeal,” it is abundantly clear from Shuai’s discussion of the attempted feticide charge in her appellate briefs that she advocates for the dismissal of both charges. Op. p. 625-26.

      . See, e.g., Montgomery v. State, 80 Ind. 338 (Ind. 1881); Traylor v. State, 101 Ind. 65 (Ind. 1885); Seifert v. State, 160 Ind. 464, 67 N.E. 100 (1903); Carter v. State, 172 Ind. 227, 87 N.E. 1081 (1909); Swanson v. State, 52 N.E.2d 616 (Ind. 1944).


author: FRIEDLANDER, Judge.

text:
    R.T. MOORE COMPANY, INC., FAHS Construction Group, Hearth at Tudor Gardens, LLC, and Hearth at Juday Creek, LLC, Appellants, v. SLANT/FIN CORPORATION, Appellee.
    No. 49A04-1109-CC-463.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana.
    Feb. 14, 2012.
    Ordered Published April 19, 2012.

      David L. Simmons, Sean T. Devenney, Drewry Simmons Vornehm, LLP, Carmel, IN, Attorneys for Appellants.
    Richard J. Dick, Mitchell Hurst Dick & McNelis, LLC, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellee.
   OPINION

FRIEDLANDER, Judge.

R.T. Moore Company, Inc., FAHS Construction Group, Hearth at Tudor Gardens, LLC, and Hearth at Juday Creek, LLC (collectively, Appellants) appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Slant/Fin Corporation. Appellants present one issue on appeal: Did the trial court err in determining that Slant/ Fin had a right to enforce Ind.Code Ann. § 32-28-3-9 (West, Westlaw current through 2011 1st Regular Sess.), also known as the Personal Liability Notice Statute (the PLN Statute)?

We reverse.

The facts in this case are undisputed and were stipulated to before the trial court. This case arises out of two separate, private construction projects — the Juday Project and the Tudor Project (collectively, the Projects). For purposes of this appeal, however, the Projects have the same operative facts.

Juday Creek is the owner of a construction project known as the Hearth at Juday Creek located in Mishawaka, Indiana; Tudor Gardens is the owner of a construction project known as the Hearth at Tudor Gardens located in Zionsville, Indiana (collectively, Owners). The Owners hired FAHS Construction to serve as the general contractor to provide improvements to their respective projects. FAHS Construction subcontracted the necessary mechanical work on the Projects to R.T. Moore. R.T. Moore ordered finned tube pipe and an enclosure (the Equipment) to be used in hydronic baseboard heating from Duraflo, a supplier of mechanical equipment. Duraflo in turn ordered the Equipment from Slant/Fin, the manufacturer that was specified in R.T. Moore’s approved redesign of the mechanical system. After Duraflo delivered the equipment to the Projects, Duraflo invoiced R.T. Moore for the equipment and R.T. Moore paid the balance due Duraflo in a timely manner. Duraflo subsequently suspended its operations and turned over its assets to a secured lender without paying Slant/Fin for the Materials Slant/Fin supplied and that were ultimately installed on the Projects.

On November 4, 2009, Slant/Fin filed “Notice of Personal Liability” claims pursuant to I.C. § 32-28-3-9 (the Notices) to the Owners, to secure moneys Slant/Fin claimed it was owed for the Equipment supplied and installed on the Projects. Slant/Fin’s claim against Juday Creek was in the amount of $31,833.35; its claim against Tudor Gardens was in the amount of $34,670.92. In response to the Notices, the Owners withheld monies owed to project participants on both Projects to protect against the possibility of double payment. As a result, R.T. Moore did not receive payment for labor and materials it supplied to the Projects.

On November 17, 2009, R.T. Moore filed its complaint against Slant/Fin seeking, in part, a declaratory judgment that Slant/ Fin, as a “material supplier to a material supplier” on the Projects, lacked standing to assert a claim under the PLN statute against the Owners and was therefore not entitled to the protections afforded under the PLN statute. Appellants Appendix at 10, 13. FAHS Construction and the Owners were ultimately joined as plaintiffs in the case. In answering a first amended complaint filed by R.T. Moore, Slant/Fin filed a counterclaim seeking a judgment affirming its rights under the PLN Statute and requiring the Owners to pay Slant/Fin monies it claimed it was owed.

On September 22, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that Slant/Fin could not enforce the protections of the PLN Statute. Slant/Fin responded to the motion for summary judgment on October 18, 2011 and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The parties stipulated to the determinative facts for purposes of their cross-motions for summary judgment. On December 9, 2010, the trial court held a hearing on the cross-motions for summary judgment, and on April 25, 2011, the trial court entered its order granting Slant/ Fin’s motion for summary judgment. The parties stipulated to an amended order correcting an apparent typographical error concerning one of the parties, and the trial court issued the amended order on June 27, 2011. Notwithstanding their stipulation to correct the typographical error, the Plaintiffs reserved their right to continue to contest the entry of summary judgment. On June 28, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to correct errors, to which Slant/ Fin filed a response in opposition. After a hearing on September 7, 2011, the trial court filed its order denying the Plaintiffs’ motion to correct errors. Plaintiffs now appeal.

When reviewing a trial court’s order granting summary judgment, we apply the same standard as that of the trial court. Lacy-McKinney v. Taylor Bean & Whitaker Mortg. Corp., 937 N.E.2d 853 (Ind.Ct.App.2010).

Summary judgment is appropriate only where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ind. Trial Rule 56(C); Mangold ex rel. Mangold v. Ind. Dep’t of Natural Res., 756 N.E.2d 970, 973 (Ind.2001). All facts and reasonable inferences drawn from those facts are construed in favor of the nonmovant. Our review of a summary judgment motion is limited to those materials designated to the trial court.

Runkle v. Runkle, 916 N.E.2d 184, 190 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (some citations omitted), trans. denied. Because a trial court’s grant of summary judgment comes to us clothed with a presumption of validity, the appellants must persuade us that error occurred. Lacy-McKinney v. Taylor Bean & Whitaker Mortg. Corp., 937 N.E.2d 853. We will affirm if the trial court’s grant of summary judgment can be sustained on any theory or basis in the record. Clary v. Dibble, 903 N.E.2d 1032 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), trans. denied. We must carefully review a grant of summary judgment in order to ensure that a party was not improperly denied his or her day in court. Lacy-McKinney v. Taylor Bean & Whitaker Mortg. Corp., 937 N.E.2d 853.

Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Slant/Fin because Slant/ Fin, as a material supplier to a material supplier on a private construction project, cannot enforce the protections of the PLN Statute. To address the issue presented, we must interpret the PLN Statute.

In interpreting the provisions of the personal liability statute, we are faced with a matter of law which we will determine de novo. Pendleton v. Aguilar, 827 N.E.2d 614, 619 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), reh’g denied, trans. denied. We are not bound by the trial court’s legal interpretation of a statute and -need not give it deference. Id. We independently determine the statute’s meaning and apply it to the facts before us. During our review, the express language of the statute and rules of statutory construction apply. Id. We will examine the statute as a whole and avoid excessive reliance on a strict literal meaning or the selective reading of words. Id. Where the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, there is nothing to construe. Id. However, where the language is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, the statute must be construed to give effect to the legislature’s intent. Id. The legislature is presumed to have intended the language used in the statute to be applied logically and not to bring about an unjust or absurd result. Id. Further, we are compelled to ascertain and execute legislative intent in such a manner as to prevent absurdity and difficulty and to prefer public conscience. Id. In so doing, we are required to keep in mind the object and purpose of the law as well as the effect and repercussions of such a construction. Id. at 619-20.

Gibsorir-Lewis, LLC v. Teachers Credit Union, 854 N.E.2d 392, 394-95 (Ind.Ct. App.2006), trans. denied.

The PLN Statute, I.C. § 32-28-3-9, which is found under the chapter pertaining to mechanics’ liens, provides in pertinent part:

(a) This section applies to a:
(1) subcontractor;
(2) lessor leasing construction and other equipment and tools, regardless of whether an operator is also provided by the lessor;
(3) journeyman; or
(4) laborer;
employed or leasing any equipment or tools used by the lessee in erecting, altering, repairing, or removing any house, mill, manufactory or other building, or bridge, reservoir, system of waterworks, or other structure or earth moving, or in furnishing any material or machinery for these activities.

The PLN Statute imposes personal liability on project owners in favor of subcontractors and others identified in subsection (a) that have not been paid by their contractors. Mercantile Nat’l Bank of Ind. v. First Builders of Ind., Inc., 774 N.E.2d 488 (Ind.2002). Although located in the Indiana Code chapter dealing with mechanics’ liens, the PLN Statute is a separate mechanism at the disposal of a subcontractor who has not been paid by its general contractor to seek recovery from the owner of a construction project. Id.

As explained by our Supreme Court,

The Mechanics’ Lien Statute provides a procedure for persons who perform labor or furnish materials or machinery for construction projects to establish and enforce a lien on the structure on which they have worked or for which they have furnished materials or machinery and on the interest of the owner of the land on which the structure stands or with which it is connected to the extent of the value of the work performed and material furnished.

Mat 490. The PLN Statute

provides a procedure for subcontractors, workers employed by others, and persons who lease materials or machinery for construction projects to establish liability on the part of the owner of the project for the amount owed to such subcontractors, workers, and persons by their respective contractors, employers, and lessees.

Id.

A subcontractor’s rights under the PLN Statute are viewed as an additional or alternative remedy to the subcontractor’s rights under the Mechanics’ Lien Statute and to any other remedies the subcontractor may have against its contractor. Mercantile Nat’l Bank of Ind., 774 N.E.2d 488; see also Lee & Mayfield, Inc. v. Lykowski House Moving Eng’rs, Inc., 489 N.E.2d 603 (Ind.Ct.App.1986), trans. denied. The key difference between the Mechanics’ Lien Statute and the PLN statute concerns the limitation on recovery. Mercantile Nat’l Bank of Ind., 774 N.E.2d 488. Under the PLN Statute the owner’s liability shall be “for not more than the amount that is due and may later become due from the owner to the employer or lessee.” I.C. § 32-28-3-9(d). The Mechanics’ Lien Statute, on the other hand, creates a secured interest that gives the subcontractor priority over the owner’s unsecured creditors. Mercantile Nat’l Bank of Ind., 774 N.E.2d 488; see also I.C. § 32-28-3--1 (West, Westlaw current through 2011 1st Regular Sess.). Further, the Mechanics’ Lien Statute “does not, at least in so many words, limit the subcontractor’s lien to the amount that the owner owes the contractor.” Mercantile Nat’l Bank of Ind., 774 N.E.2d at 490.

Turning now to the precise issue before us, we must examine the PLN Statute and decide if Slant/Fin falls within the class of persons/entities entitled to seek a remedy thereunder. This court has held that the class of individuals protected by the PLN Statute is the same as under the Mechanics’ Lien Statute. Lee & Mayfield, Inc. v. Lykowski House Moving Eng’rs, Inc., 489 N.E.2d 603. We found that such a rule is

consistent with the rationale that the personal liability section provides an alternate or additional remedy for individuals who may be barred from acquiring a mechanic’s lien because of a no-lien agreement between the contractor and the owner, or for whom the mechanic’s lien might be inadequate due to prior encumbrances on the property.

Id. at 608.

We further note that the statutory language defining what class of construction industry participants is entitled to make a claim under the PLN Statute is substantially similar to the language defining what construction industry participants are entitled to claim rights under the Mechanics’ Lien Statute. As set forth above, the PLN Statute, I.C. § 32-28-3-9, which is found under the chapter pertaining to mechanics’ liens, provides in pertinent part:

(a) This section applies to a:

(1) subcontractor;
(2) lessor leasing construction and other equipment and tools, regardless of whether an operator is also provided by the lessor;
(3) journeyman; or
(4) laborer;
employed or leasing any equipment or tools used by the lessee in erecting, altering, repairing, or removing any house, mill, manufactory or other building, or bridge, reservoir, system of waterworks, or other structure or earth moving, or in furnishing any material or machinery for these activities.

The Mechanics’ Lien Statute specifies:

(a) A contractor, a subcontractor, a mechanic, a lessor leasing construction and other equipment and tools, whether or not an operator is also provided by the lessor, a journeyman, a laborer, or any other person performing labor or furnishing materials or machinery, including the leasing of equipment or tools, for:
(1) the erection, alteration, repair, or removal of:
(A) a house, mill, manufactory, or other building; or
(B) a bridge, reservoir, system of waterworks, or other structure;
(2) the construction, alteration, repair, or removal of a walk or sidewalk located on the land or bordering the land, a stile, a well, a drain, a drainage ditch, a sewer, or a cistern; or
(3) any other earth moving operation; may have a lien as set forth in this section.

I.C. § 32-28-3-1.

Because the Mechanics’ Lien Statute is in derogation of the common law, we have strictly construed its provisions. We have also kept in mind that the purpose of the Mechanics’ Lien Statute “is to promote honesty and fair dealing among the parties to a construction contract and to prevent unjust enrichment of the owner who enjoys the material improvement of his property.” City of Evansville v. Verplank Concrete & Supply, Inc., 400 N.E.2d 812, 818 (Ind.Ct.App.1980). To that end, we have found that “[w]hile materialmen are within the protected class, the phrase ‘all other persons’ has not been construed to permit a lien by those parties whose contribution to the effort is remote.” Id. Indeed, we have found that “materialmen supplying others who must themselves be considered materialmen have traditionally been considered outside the ambit of the statute.” Id. at 819.

The same principles hold true in construing the PLN Statute. Here, Du-raflo is a material supplier to the Projects. Slant/Fin is a materialman that supplied Equipment to Duraflo. Neither Duraflo nor Slant/Fin performed any labor on the

Projects. Thus, Slant/Fin is a classic ma-terialman to a materialman. Classified as such, Slant/Fin is not permitted to seek a mechanics’ lien, and thus, is not permitted to seek the protections of the PLN Statute. See id. We therefore conclude that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Slant/Fin.

Judgment reversed.

RILEY, J., and MATHIAS, J., concur.

      . We agree with this court’s acknowledgement in footnote 4 in its opinion in Evansville, that although in some cases materialmen have been denominated as subcontractors for purposes unrelated to the Mechanics’ Lien Statute, such materialmen are not subcontractors within the meaning of the Mechanics’ Lien Statute. City of Evansville v. Verplank Concrete & Supply, Inc., 400 N.E.2d at 819 n. 4. But see Nash Engineering Company v. Marcy Realty Corporation, Inc., 222 Ind. 396, 54 N.E.2d 263 (Ind. 1944); Western Cas. & Sur. Co. v. State, 146 Ind.App. 431, 256 N.E.2d 398 (Ind.Ct.App. 1970).