May, J.
Robyn L. Spradlin worked as a registered nurse at Riverview Village, a nursing facility that has a two-step reporting procedure for dispensing controlled substances to patients. This procedure requires nurses to complete one paper form when removing medication from the locked medication cart and then to complete a second electronic documentation when the controlled substance has been administered to the patient. On more than forty occasions between December 1, 2017, and March 31, 2018, Spradlin completed the form indicating she took narcotics from the locked cart without completing the electronic documentation that demonstrated she administered the narcotics to a patient. The State charged Spradlin with Level 6 felony failure to make, keep or furnish records, and a jury found her guilty.
On appeal, Spradlin raises three interrelated issues but we need address only one: whether the State presented sufficient evidence that the second form required by Riverview Village’s procedures was a form “required under Article 35-48.” Ind. Code § 35-48-4-14(a)(3). Because the State failed to present any evidence to connect Riverview Village’s policy to Article 35-48, we reverse.
…
Spradlin argues the State presented insufficient evidence to support her conviction… Our legislature defined the charged crime as a Level 6 felony that occurs when: “(a) A person . . . (3) recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally fails to make, keep, or furnish a record, a notification, an order form, a statement, an invoice, or information required under this article[.]” Ind. Code § 35-48-4-14(a)(3) (emphasis added). The phrase “under this article” refers to Article 48 of Title 35 of Indiana’s Criminal Code, and that language should not be treated as mere surplusage. See Turner v. State, 253 N.E.3d 526, 537 (Ind. 2025) (We avoid interpretations of statutes “that render any part of the statute meaningless or superfluous.”). That language limits the scope of criminal liability for failures to complete medical records to those records required by law, rather than also including records required simply by facility policy or professional standards.
As an element of the crime, the State bore the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the records Spradlin failed to complete – dozens of eMAR regarding controlled substances – were required under Article 35-48. See Halsema v. State, 823 N.E.2d 668, 673 (Ind. 2005) (when the weight of the drug possessed is indicated in statute, that element “must be proven by the State beyond a reasonable doubt” just like any other element of the crime).
At trial, the State presented no documentary evidence establishing what specific law under Article 35-48 required Spradlin to compete the eMAR in addition to the NCS.
…
The State’s evidence about whether the eMAR was legally required consisted entirely of inconclusive witness testimony that was insufficient to establish the eMAR was required by Article 35-48.
…
The State presented substantial evidence that Spradlin removed controlled substances from the medication cart on more than forty occasions and completed NCS forms documenting that removal but she did not complete the corresponding eMAR to demonstrate administration of those narcotics to a patient. The State presented evidence that eMAR documentation was important for patient safety and facility accountability. The State presented evidence that nurses receive training on proper documentation in nursing school and at facility orientation. The State presented evidence that Spradlin knew the proper procedure, as she correctly described it during her interview with Investigator Davis. This evidence was sufficient to prove that Spradlin failed to comply with facility documentation requirements and potentially violated professional nursing standards. It was not sufficient, however, to prove that she violated a legal requirement under Article 35-48 of the Indiana Criminal Code, which was required to convict her of the offense charged. Without evidence establishing this element, Spradlin’s conviction cannot stand.
The State failed to demonstrate the eMAR that Spradlin did not complete were records required to be made under Title 35, Article 48, which was an element of the crime charged. Because of that failure of proof, we much reverse.
Reversed.
Weissmann, J., and Scheele, J., concur.