Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-36-9-4 (2026)
Hearing on petition
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 4. (a) The court shall conduct a hearing on the petition under this chapter.
(b) At the hearing, the defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is an individual with an intellectual disability.
As added by P.L.158-1994, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.99-2007, SEC.203; P.L.117-2015, SEC.50.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1998–2011 · leading case: Pruitt v. State, 834 N.E.2d 90 (Ind. 2005).
Pruitt v. State, 834 N.E.2d 90 (Ind. 2005). “Indiana Code section 35-36-9-4 places the burden on the defendant to "prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is a mentally retarded individual.”
State v. McManus, 868 N.E.2d 778 (Ind. 2007). “As originally enacted, Ind.Code § 35-36-9-4 required a defendant to "prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is a mentally retarded individual.”
Rogers v. State, 698 N.E.2d 1172 (Ind. 1998). “4 Pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-36-9-4 , defendant filed with the trial court a motion to evaluate defendant as mentally retarded to determine whether he was ineligible for either sentence sought by the State.”
Smallwood v. State, 773 N.E.2d 259 (Ind. 2002). “Ind. Code § 35-36-9-4 (b). The defendant’s psychologist did not testify that, in his opinion, the defendant was mentally retarded.”
Jenkins v. State, 498 S.E.2d 502 (Ga. 1998). “§ 17-7-131(c)(3), (j); Ind.Code Ann. §§ 35-36-9-4, -6; Kan. Stat.”
Bowling v. Commonwealth, 163 S.W.3d 361 (Ky. 2005). “137 (4); Ind.Code Ann. § 35-36-9-4(b); N.C. Gen. Stat.”
Ex Parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). “137 (West 2003); and Ind.Code § 35-36-9-4 (2003). Two of the nineteen (Kansas and Kentucky) do not have a statutoiy burden of proof.”
Stripling v. State, 711 S.E.2d 665 (Ga. 2011). “137 (4); Ind. Code Ann. § 35-36-9-4 (b); Ariz. Rev.”
Witt v. State, 938 N.E.2d 1193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “At oral argument, counsel for Witt conceded that she had located no authority for the proposition that a LWOP sentence for a mentally retarded individual constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under either the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article…”
People v. Vasquez, 84 P.3d 1019 (Colo. 2004). “137 (4) (2003), and Indiana, Ind.Code § 35-36-9-4(b)(2003). Since Atkins , two states have passed statutes requiring a mentally retarded defendant to prove his mental retardation by clear and convincing evidence— Arizona, Ariz.”
Ferrell v. Head, 398 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (N.D. Ga. 2005). “137 ; Ind.Code Ann. § 35-36-9-4; N.C. Gen.Stat.”
— Ind. Code § 35-36-9-4(b) — 4 cases
Bowling v. Commonwealth, 163 S.W.3d 361 (Ky. 2005). “137 (4); Ind.Code Ann. § 35-36-9-4(b); N.C. Gen. Stat.”
Witt v. State, 938 N.E.2d 1193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “At oral argument, counsel for Witt conceded that she had located no authority for the proposition that a LWOP sentence for a mentally retarded individual constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under either the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article…”
Stripling v. State, 711 S.E.2d 665 (Ga. 2011). “137 (4); Ind. Code Ann. § 35-36-9-4 (b); Ariz. Rev.”
Rogers v. State, 698 N.E.2d 1172 (Ind. 1998). “4 Pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-36-9-4 , defendant filed with the trial court a motion to evaluate defendant as mentally retarded to determine whether he was ineligible for either sentence sought by the State.”
— Ind. Code § 35-36-9-4(b)(2003) — 1 case
People v. Vasquez, 84 P.3d 1019 (Colo. 2004). “137 (4) (2003), and Indiana, Ind.Code § 35-36-9-4(b)(2003). Since Atkins , two states have passed statutes requiring a mentally retarded defendant to prove his mental retardation by clear and convincing evidence— Arizona, Ariz.”
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.