Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 26-15-3.2 (2026)
Chemical Endangerment of Exposing a Child to an Environment in Which Controlled Substances Are Produced or Distributed.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
(a) A responsible person commits the crime of chemical endangerment of exposing a child to an environment in which he or she does any of the following:
(1) Knowingly, recklessly, or intentionally causes or permits a child to be exposed to, to ingest or inhale, or to have contact with a controlled substance, chemical substance, or drug paraphernalia as defined in Section 13A-12-260. A violation under this subdivision is a Class C felony.
(2) Violates subdivision (1) and a child suffers serious physical injury by exposure to, ingestion of, inhalation of, or contact with a controlled substance, chemical substance, or drug paraphernalia. A violation under this subdivision is a Class B felony.
(3) Violates subdivision (1) and the exposure, ingestion, inhalation, or contact results in the death of the child. A violation under this subdivision is a Class A felony.
(b) The court shall impose punishment pursuant to this section rather than imposing punishment authorized under any other provision of law, unless another provision of law provides for a greater penalty or a longer term of imprisonment.
(c) It is an affirmative defense to a violation of this section that the controlled substance was provided by lawful prescription for the child, and that it was administered to the child in accordance with the prescription instructions provided with the controlled substance.
(Act 2006-204, p. 302, §2.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 2010–2015 · leading case: Ankrom v. State, 152 So. 3d 397 (Ala. 2013).
Ankrom v. State, 152 So. 3d 397 (Ala. 2013). “We granted the petitions and consolidated these cases, each of which presents the same issue of first impression for this Court’s consideration: Whether the term “child” as used in § 26-15-3.2, Ala.Code 1975 (“the chemical-endangerment statute”), includes an unborn child.”
Ankrom v. State, 152 So. 3d 373 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). “Hope Elisabeth Ankrom pleaded guilty to chemical endangerment of a child, a violation of § 26-15-3.2, Ala. Code 1975. The trial court sentenced Ankrom to three years in prison, but the court suspended that sentence and placed her on one year of supervised probation.”
Christopher v. Christopher, 145 So. 3d 60 (Ala. 2013). “” It is undisputed that this Code section allows courts to order custody and payment for the education and support of the children of divorcing parents; 17 the issue here, however, is whether such payment can be required when the “children of the marriage” are not minors.”
Hicks v. State, 153 So. 3d 53 (Ala. 2014). “) Thus, Hicks argues, the term ‘child’ in § 26-15-3.2 should not be construed to include an unborn child or fetus.”
Wallace v. State, 130 So. 3d 212 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013). “Wallace next argues that the State failed to prove that he violated § 26-15-3.2, Ala.Code 1975, because, he says, it failed to prove that he was a “responsible person” as that term is defined in § 26-15-2, Ala.”
Pickering v. State, 194 So. 3d 980 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015). “On May 5, 2014, the circuit court issued the following written order setting forth its findings of fact regarding the motion to suppress: “The Defendant is charged with chemical endangerment of a child, pursuant to The Code of Alabama § 26-15-3.2(a)(1). The charge came after she…”
Billingsley v. State, 115 So. 3d 192 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012). “Rather, Ankrom’s motion and argument forthrightly raised the issue whether her conduct, as a matter of law, constituted a violation of § 26-15-3.2, Ala.Code 1975, the offense charged in the indictment.”
Williams v. State, 55 So. 3d 366 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010). “Code 1975, and one count of chemical endangerment of a child, see § 26-15-3.2, Ala.Code 1975. The trial court sentenced Williams, as a habitual offender, to concurrent terms of 15 years’ imprisonment on each count.”
— Ala. Code § 26-15-3.2(A) — 1 case
Wallace v. State, 130 So. 3d 212 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013). “Wallace next argues that the State failed to prove that he violated § 26-15-3.2, Ala.Code 1975, because, he says, it failed to prove that he was a “responsible person” as that term is defined in § 26-15-2, Ala.”
— Ala. Code § 26-15-3.2(a) — 3 cases
Ankrom v. State, 152 So. 3d 397 (Ala. 2013). “We granted the petitions and consolidated these cases, each of which presents the same issue of first impression for this Court’s consideration: Whether the term “child” as used in § 26-15-3.2, Ala.Code 1975 (“the chemical-endangerment statute”), includes an unborn child.”
Ankrom v. State, 152 So. 3d 373 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). “Hope Elisabeth Ankrom pleaded guilty to chemical endangerment of a child, a violation of § 26-15-3.2, Ala. Code 1975. The trial court sentenced Ankrom to three years in prison, but the court suspended that sentence and placed her on one year of supervised probation.”
Wallace v. State, 130 So. 3d 212 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013). “Wallace next argues that the State failed to prove that he violated § 26-15-3.2, Ala.Code 1975, because, he says, it failed to prove that he was a “responsible person” as that term is defined in § 26-15-2, Ala.”
— Ala. Code § 26-15-3.2(a)(1) — 3 cases
Ankrom v. State, 152 So. 3d 373 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). “Hope Elisabeth Ankrom pleaded guilty to chemical endangerment of a child, a violation of § 26-15-3.2, Ala. Code 1975. The trial court sentenced Ankrom to three years in prison, but the court suspended that sentence and placed her on one year of supervised probation.”
Hicks v. State, 153 So. 3d 53 (Ala. 2014). “) Thus, Hicks argues, the term ‘child’ in § 26-15-3.2 should not be construed to include an unborn child or fetus.”
Pickering v. State, 194 So. 3d 980 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015). “On May 5, 2014, the circuit court issued the following written order setting forth its findings of fact regarding the motion to suppress: “The Defendant is charged with chemical endangerment of a child, pursuant to The Code of Alabama § 26-15-3.2(a)(1). The charge came after she…”
— Ala. Code § 26-15-3.2(a)(3) — 1 case
Ankrom v. State, 152 So. 3d 397 (Ala. 2013). “We granted the petitions and consolidated these cases, each of which presents the same issue of first impression for this Court’s consideration: Whether the term “child” as used in § 26-15-3.2, Ala.Code 1975 (“the chemical-endangerment statute”), includes an unborn child.”
— Ala. Code § 26-15-3.2(a)(l) — 4 cases
Ankrom v. State, 152 So. 3d 373 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). “Hope Elisabeth Ankrom pleaded guilty to chemical endangerment of a child, a violation of § 26-15-3.2, Ala. Code 1975. The trial court sentenced Ankrom to three years in prison, but the court suspended that sentence and placed her on one year of supervised probation.”
Ankrom v. State, 152 So. 3d 397 (Ala. 2013). “We granted the petitions and consolidated these cases, each of which presents the same issue of first impression for this Court’s consideration: Whether the term “child” as used in § 26-15-3.2, Ala.Code 1975 (“the chemical-endangerment statute”), includes an unborn child.”
Hicks v. State, 153 So. 3d 53 (Ala. 2014). “) Thus, Hicks argues, the term ‘child’ in § 26-15-3.2 should not be construed to include an unborn child or fetus.”
Pickering v. State, 194 So. 3d 980 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015). “On May 5, 2014, the circuit court issued the following written order setting forth its findings of fact regarding the motion to suppress: “The Defendant is charged with chemical endangerment of a child, pursuant to The Code of Alabama § 26-15-3.2(a)(1). The charge came after she…”
— Ala. Code § 26-15-3.2(c) — 1 case
Ankrom v. State, 152 So. 3d 397 (Ala. 2013). “We granted the petitions and consolidated these cases, each of which presents the same issue of first impression for this Court’s consideration: Whether the term “child” as used in § 26-15-3.2, Ala.Code 1975 (“the chemical-endangerment statute”), includes an unborn child.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.