Ind. Code » Title 35
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 35-36-1-1 (2025)

Definitions

✓ 2025 Indiana Code: the 2026 session is not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 1. As used in this article:

     "Insanity" refers to the defense set out in IC 35-41-3-6.

     "Mentally ill" means having a psychiatric disorder which substantially disturbs a person's thinking, feeling, or behavior and impairs the person's ability to function. The term includes having an intellectual disability.

     "Omnibus date" refers to the omnibus date established under IC 35-36-8-1.

As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.5. Amended by P.L.117-2015, SEC.46.

 

IC 35-36-2Chapter 2. Affirmative Defense of Insanity or Mental Illness; Pleadings, Orders, and Findings

 

           35-36-2-1Time of filing
           35-36-2-2Insanity defense; appointment of psychiatrists, psychologists, and physicians; admissibility of evidence
           35-36-2-3Finding of jury
           35-36-2-4Finding of nonresponsibility by reason of insanity; commitment procedures; requirements of the warden and attending physician; transmittal of information to NICS
           35-36-2-5Finding or plea of guilty but mentally ill; evaluation; sentence; treatment; transmittal of information to NICS

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Pruitt v. State, 903 N.E.2d 899 (Ind. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pruitt v. State, 903 N.E.2d 899 (Ind. 2009). · cites it 5× “During both the pre-trial mental retardation hearing and during trial, trial counsel presented extensive mitigation evidence through expert testimony that Pruitt was "mentally ill" (as defined by I.C. § 35-36-1-1) at the time of the crime.”
Baer v. State, 942 N.E.2d 80 (Ind. 2011). · cites it 8× “” Ind.Code § 35-36-1-1 (2008). The difference between guilty and guilty but mentally ill does not compel a difference in sentencing.”
Overstreet v. State, 877 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007). · cites it 4× “[3] Ind.Code § 35-36-1-1 (1981) (definitions of "insanity" and "mentally ill"), Ind.”
Archer v. State, 689 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. 1998). · cites it 4× “” Ind.Code § 35-36-1-1 (1993). We conclude that the sentencing court made the required finding of mental illness at the time it accepted defendant’s *684 plea and then again orally at the sentencing hearing.”
Commonwealth v. Trill, 543 A.2d 1106 (Pa. 1988). · cites it 4× “Most states emphatically maintained a "wait and see" attitude, hoping that Michigan's experiment would provide guidance for the implementation of their own guilty but mentally ill statutes.”
Lowery v. State, 547 N.E.2d 1046 (Ind. 1989). · cites it 4× “" Ind. Code § 35-36-1-1 . [3] During a hearing out of the presence of the jury on the defendant's motion in limine, Detective Robert Cummins testified the photographs were taken to show "the body spread-eagled with a stick or a tree limb, which appeared to be inserted into the…”
Andrew S. Satterfield v. State of Indiana, 33 N.E.3d 344 (Ind. 2015). · cites it 2× “Defendants are guilty but mentally ill if the jury finds they have committed the charged offense while “having a psychiatric disorder which substantially disturbs [their] thinking, feeling, or behavior and impairs [their] ability to function .”
Walton v. State, 650 N.E.2d 1134 (Ind. 1995). · cites it 3× “Ind. Code Ann. § 35-36-1-1 (West 1986). In accepting such a plea, the trial court was required to and did conclude that appellant was mentally ill at the time of the crime.”
Weeks v. State, 697 N.E.2d 28 (Ind. 1998). · cites it 2× “” Ind.Code § 35-36-1-1 (1993). Weeks argues that the jury’s verdict of GBMI was erroneous because he proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he was unable to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the crime.”
Matheney v. State, 834 N.E.2d 658 (Ind. 2005). · cites it 2× “§ 35-41-3-6(a); I.C. § 35-36-1-1. The jury unanimously recommended the death sentence.”
Christopher v. Indiana, 511 N.E.2d 1019 (Ind. 1987). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 35-36-1-1. The evidence presented included the following.”
Thomas ex rel. Thomas v. Murphy, 918 N.E.2d 656 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “Under Indiana Code section 35-36-1-1 (2004), "[mJentally ill" means having a psychiatric disorder which substantially disturbs a person's thinking, feeling, or behavior and impairs the person's ability to function; "mentally ill" also includes having any mental retardation.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
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.