Sec. 1. (a) Criminal actions shall be tried in the county
where the offense was committed, except as otherwise provided by law.
(b) If a person committing an offense upon the person of another is
located in one (1) county and the person's victim is located in another
county at the time of the commission of the offense, the trial may be in
either of the counties.
(c) If the offense involves killing or causing the death of another
human being, the trial may be in the county in which the:
(1) cause of death is inflicted;
(2) death occurs; or
(3) victim's body is found.
(d) If an offense is committed in Indiana and it cannot readily be
determined in which county the offense was committed, trial may be in
any county in which an act was committed in furtherance of the
offense.
(e) If an offense is commenced outside Indiana and completed
within Indiana, the offender may be tried in any county where any act
in furtherance of the offense occurred.
(f) If an offense commenced inside Indiana is completed outside
Indiana, the offender shall be tried in any county where an act in
furtherance of the offense occurred.
(g) If an offense is committed on the portions of the Ohio or Wabash
Rivers where they form a part of the boundaries of this state, trial may
be in the county that is adjacent to the river and whose boundaries, if
projected across the river, would include the place where the offense
was committed.
(h) If an offense is committed at a place which is on or near a
common boundary which is shared by two (2) or more counties and it
cannot be readily determined where the offense was committed, then
the trial may be in any county sharing the common boundary.
(i) If an offense is committed on a public highway (as defined in IC 9-25-2-4) that runs on and along a common boundary shared by two (2)
or more counties, the trial may be held in any county sharing the
common boundary.
(j) If an offense is committed by use of the Internet or another
computer network (as defined in IC 35-43-2-3), the trial may be held
in any county:
(1) from which or to which access to the Internet or other
computer network was made; or
(2) in which any computer, computer data, computer software, or
computer network that was used to access the Internet or other
computer network is located.
(k) If an offense:
(1) is committed by use of:
(A) the Internet or another computer network (as defined in IC 35-43-2-3); or
(B) another form of electronic communication; and
(2) occurs outside Indiana and the victim of the offense resides in
Indiana at the time of the offense;
the trial may be held in the county where the victim resides at the time
of the offense.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.1. Amended by Acts
1982, P.L.204, SEC.5; P.L.320-1983, SEC.1; P.L.98-2000, SEC.16;
P.L.115-2005, SEC.2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
46
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case:
Eberle v. State, 942 N.E.2d 848 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
Eberle v. State, 942 N.E.2d 848 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 22× “I, § 13; Ind.Code § 35-32-2-1(a); Alkhalidi v. State, 753 N.”
Benham v. State of Indiana, 637 N.E.2d 133 (Ind. 1994).
· cites it 9× “This conclusion is not altered by Indiana's Ohio River shoreline county venue statute, Ind. Code § 35-32-2-1 (g), which provides: If an offense is committed on the portions of the Ohio or Wabash Rivers where they form a part of the boundaries of this state, trial may be had in…”
Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d 401 (Ind. 2000).
· cites it 4× “Indiana Code § 35-32-2-1 provides: (a) Criminal actions shall be tried in the county where the offense was committed, except as otherwise provided by law.”
Alkhalidi v. State, 753 N.E.2d 625 (Ind. 2001).
· cites it 2× “I, § 13; Ind.Code § 35-32-2-1(a); Weaver v. State, 583 N.”
Neff v. State, 915 N.E.2d 1026 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “6 To the ex tent the trial court concluded that Neff did comtait an act in furtherance of child solic *1035 itation in Hamilton County, and thus venue there was proper under Indiana Code Section 35-32-2-1(£), it erred. That Neff eventually was apprehended in Hamilton County by…”
Baugh v. State, 801 N.E.2d 629 (Ind. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Because the risks created by drunk en driving on a boundary road do not stop at the county boundary, a sufficient nexus exists between the place of operation and either county.”
Kuchel v. State, 570 N.E.2d 910 (Ind. 1991).
· cites it 4× “I, § 13; Ind. Code § 35-32-2-1 ; Sears v. State (1983), Ind.”
Eckstein v. State, 839 N.E.2d 232 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “Indiana Code Section 35-32-2-1(a) states in pertinent part that "[clriminal actions shall be tried in the county where the offense was committed.”
Johnson v. State, 774 N.E.2d 1012 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “2000); see also Ind.Code § 35-32-2-1. Thus, Hamilton County had no jurisdiction over crimes occurring in Madison County.”
Smith v. State, 809 N.E.2d 938 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “The right to be tried in the county in which an offense was committed is a constitutional and a statutory right.”
Tyreese Taylor-Bey v. State of Indiana, 53 N.E.3d 1230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Code § 35-41-1-1(b) (providing that a “person” may be convicted under Indiana law if the conduct or result occurred in Indiana); Ind. Code § 35-32-2-1 (“Criminal actions shall be tried in the county where the offense was committed_”).”
— Ind. Code § 35-32-2-1(a) — 16 cases
Eberle v. State, 942 N.E.2d 848 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
“I, § 13; Ind.Code § 35-32-2-1(a); Alkhalidi v. State, 753 N.”
Alkhalidi v. State, 753 N.E.2d 625 (Ind. 2001).
“I, § 13; Ind.Code § 35-32-2-1(a); Weaver v. State, 583 N.”
Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d 401 (Ind. 2000).
“Indiana Code § 35-32-2-1 provides: (a) Criminal actions shall be tried in the county where the offense was committed, except as otherwise provided by law.”
Smith v. State, 809 N.E.2d 938 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
“The right to be tried in the county in which an offense was committed is a constitutional and a statutory right.”
Eckstein v. State, 839 N.E.2d 232 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
“Indiana Code Section 35-32-2-1(a) states in pertinent part that "[clriminal actions shall be tried in the county where the offense was committed.”
— Ind. Code § 35-32-2-1(a)(1998) — 2 cases
— Ind. Code § 35-32-2-1(b) — 5 cases
Baugh v. State, 801 N.E.2d 629 (Ind. 2004).
“Because the risks created by drunk en driving on a boundary road do not stop at the county boundary, a sufficient nexus exists between the place of operation and either county.”
— Ind. Code § 35-32-2-1(c) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-32-2-1(d) — 5 cases
Eckstein v. State, 839 N.E.2d 232 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
“Indiana Code Section 35-32-2-1(a) states in pertinent part that "[clriminal actions shall be tried in the county where the offense was committed.”
— Ind. Code § 35-32-2-1(g) — 1 case
Benham v. State of Indiana, 637 N.E.2d 133 (Ind. 1994).
“This conclusion is not altered by Indiana's Ohio River shoreline county venue statute, Ind. Code § 35-32-2-1 (g), which provides: If an offense is committed on the portions of the Ohio or Wabash Rivers where they form a part of the boundaries of this state, trial may be had in…”
— Ind. Code § 35-32-2-1(h) — 3 cases
Eberle v. State, 942 N.E.2d 848 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
“I, § 13; Ind.Code § 35-32-2-1(a); Alkhalidi v. State, 753 N.”
— Ind. Code § 35-32-2-1(i) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-32-2-1(k) — 3 cases
Eberle v. State, 942 N.E.2d 848 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
“I, § 13; Ind.Code § 35-32-2-1(a); Alkhalidi v. State, 753 N.”
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.