Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-36-2-3 (2026)
Finding of jury
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 3. In all cases in which the defense of insanity is interposed, the jury (or the court if tried by it) shall find whether the defendant is:
(1) guilty;
(2) not guilty;
(3) not responsible by reason of insanity at the time of the crime; or
(4) guilty but mentally ill at the time of the crime.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.5.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Baer v. State, 866 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. 2007).
Baer v. State, 866 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. 2007). “Ind.Code § 35-36-2-3. In the notice, however, the defendant advised his intention to assert the defense of mental disease or defect "as set out in" Indiana Code § 35-41-3-6.”
Fredrick Baer v. Ron Neal, 879 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2018). “There is a clear legal difference between a jury’s finding of “not responsible by reason of insanity at the time of the crime,” Ind. Code § 35-36-2-3 (3), and “guilty but mentally ill at the time of the crime,” Ind.”
Baer v. State, 942 N.E.2d 80 (Ind. 2011). “Ind.Code § 35-36-2-3 (2008). “Mentally ill” for these purposes 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.”
Mayberry v. State, 670 N.E.2d 1262 (Ind. 1996). “[2] Ind.Code § 35-36-2-3 (1993). [3] [N]ot every communication between an attorney and a client is a "confidential communication" and entitled to a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.”
Gambill v. State, 675 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. 1996). “That statute designates, in all cases in which the defense of insanity is interposed, four possible verdicts: (1) Guilty, (2) Not Guilty, (3) Not Responsible by Reason of Insanity, or (4) Guilty but Mentally Ill at the Time of the Crime.”
Lowery v. State, 547 N.E.2d 1046 (Ind. 1989). “[2] Ind. Code § 35-36-2-3 provides: "In all cases in which the defense of insanity is interposed, the jury (or the court if tried by it) shall find whether the defendant is: (1) Guilty; (2) Not Guilty; (3) Not responsible by reason of insanity at the time of the crime; or (4)…”
Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “(citing Ind.Code §§ 35-36-2-3, -4 (2004)). It is the defendant who bears the burden of establishing the insanity defense by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Andrew S. Satterfield v. State of Indiana, 33 N.E.3d 344 (Ind. 2015). “Defendants are insane when, “as a result of mental disease or defect,” they are “unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of th[eir] conduct at the time of the offense.”
Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. 2010). “See I.C. §§ 35-36-2-3, -4. The defendant bears the burden of establishing the insanity defense by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Turner v. Est. of Turner, 454 N.E.2d 1247 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983). “For present law see Indiana Code section 35-36-2-3 (1983 Supp.). 2 . Generally, the results reached in criminal proceedings are not considered res judicata in civil cases, in part, because of the difference in the burden of proof.”
Weeks v. State, 697 N.E.2d 28 (Ind. 1998). “” Ind.Code § 35-36-2-3 (1993). “Mentally ill” is defined as “having a psychiatric disorder which substantially disturbs a person’s thinking, feeling, or behavior and impairs the person’s ability to function.”
State v. Neely, 819 P.2d 249 (N.M. 1991). “115-2 to -4, 1005-2-6 (1989); Indiana, see Ind. Code § 35-36-2-3 , -5 (1985); Kentucky, see Ky.”
— Ind. Code § 35-36-2-3(4) — 5 cases
Baer v. State, 942 N.E.2d 80 (Ind. 2011). “Ind.Code § 35-36-2-3 (2008). “Mentally ill” for these purposes 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.”
Turner v. Est. of Turner, 454 N.E.2d 1247 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983). “For present law see Indiana Code section 35-36-2-3 (1983 Supp.). 2 . Generally, the results reached in criminal proceedings are not considered res judicata in civil cases, in part, because of the difference in the burden of proof.”
Nichols v. State, 542 N.E.2d 572 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989).
Barnes v. State, 634 N.E.2d 46 (Ind. 1994).
Jamal Ahmad Gore v. State of Indiana, 7 N.E.3d 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
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.