Sec. 1. (a) As used in this section, "Indiana" includes:
(1) the area within the boundaries of the state of Indiana, as set
forth in Article 14, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of
Indiana;
(2) the portion of the Ohio River on which Indiana possesses
concurrent jurisdiction with the state of Kentucky under Article
14, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana; and
(3) the portion of the Wabash River on which Indiana possesses
concurrent jurisdiction with the state of Illinois under Article 14,
Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana.
(b) A person may be convicted under Indiana law of an offense if:
(1) either the conduct that is an element of the offense, the result
that is an element, or both, occur in Indiana;
(2) conduct occurring outside Indiana is sufficient under Indiana
law to constitute an attempt to commit an offense in Indiana;
(3) conduct occurring outside Indiana is sufficient under Indiana
law to constitute a conspiracy to commit an offense in Indiana,
and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurs in
Indiana;
(4) conduct occurring in Indiana establishes complicity in the
commission of, or an attempt or conspiracy to commit, an offense
in another jurisdiction that also is an offense under Indiana law;
(5) the offense consists of the omission to perform a duty imposed
by Indiana law with respect to domicile, residence, or a
relationship to a person, thing, or transaction in Indiana;
(6) conduct that is an element of the offense or the result of
conduct that is an element of the offense, or both, involve the use
of the Internet or another computer network (as defined in IC 35-43-2-3) and access to the Internet or other computer network
occurs in Indiana; or
(7) conduct:
(A) involves the use of:
(i) the Internet or another computer network (as defined in IC 35-43-2-3); or
(ii) another form of electronic communication;
(B) occurs outside Indiana and the victim of the offense resides
in Indiana at the time of the offense; and
(C) is sufficient under Indiana law to constitute an offense in
Indiana.
(c) When the offense is homicide, either the death of the victim or
bodily impact causing death constitutes a result under subsection
(b)(1). If the body of a homicide victim is found in Indiana, it is
presumed that the result occurred in Indiana.
(d) If the offense is identity deception or synthetic identity deception
(before its repeal), the lack of the victim's consent constitutes conduct
that is an element of the offense under subsection (b)(1). If a victim of
identity deception or synthetic identity deception (before its repeal)
resides in Indiana when a person knowingly or intentionally obtains,
possesses, transfers, or uses the victim's identifying information, it is
presumed that the conduct that is the lack of the victim's consent
occurred in Indiana.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts
1977, P.L.340, SEC.1; P.L.295-1995, SEC.1; P.L.115-2005, SEC.3;
P.L.125-2006, SEC.8; P.L.137-2009, SEC.12; P.L.174-2021,
SEC.42.
Notes of Decisions
Benham v. State of Indiana, 637 N.E.2d 133 (Ind. 1994).
· cites it 38× “The current Indiana criminal jurisdiction statute, Ind. Code § 35-41-1-1 , applicable at the time of the charged offenses, unambiguously declares: (a) A person may be convicted under Indiana law of an offense if: (1) Either the conduct that is an element of the offense, the…”
Allen v. Great Am. Reserve Ins. Co., 766 N.E.2d 1157 (Ind. 2002).
· cites it 6× “Section 35-41-1-1(b) of the Indiana Code sets forth the cireumstances under which a person may be convicted under Indiana law.”
Koch v. State, 952 N.E.2d 359 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “[9] Ind.Code § 35-41-1-1(b) provides that "[a] person may be convicted under Indiana law of an offense if .”
Lindsey v. State, 888 N.E.2d 319 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Lindsey raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the Indiana Penal Code of 1977, now codified at Ind.Code §§ 35-41-1-1 to 50-8-1, is based on “vindictive justice” and *321 contrary to Article I, Section 18 of the Indiana Constitution.”
Smith v. State, 809 N.E.2d 938 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “The authority of the State of Indiana to institute criminal prosecutions is determined by the jurisdictional statute, Ind.Code § 35-41-1-1. Id. Under Ind.Code § 35-41-1-1(b)(3), "[al person may be convicted under Indiana law of an offense if .”
Alkhalidi v. State, 753 N.E.2d 625 (Ind. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 35-41-1-1(b)(1) (1998); McKinney v.”
Ortiz v. State, 766 N.E.2d 370 (Ind. 2002).
· cites it 2× “*374 A person may be convicted of a crime in Indiana if either the conduct or the result that is an element of the offense occurred in Indiana IC. § 35-41-1-1(b)(1). Territorial jurisdiction, which relates to the authority of the State to prosecute a person for an act committed…”
State v. Wogenstahl (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 6873 (Ohio 2017).
· cites it 4× “Therefore, it appears that Wogenstahl will not be able to escape the jurisdiction of the Indiana courts.9 {¶ 73} As we recognized in Yarbrough, “[t]he General Assembly has not authorized an Ohio court of common pleas to exercise jurisdiction over the prosecution of a defendant…”
Custis v. State, 793 N.E.2d 1220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “[2] Ind.Code § 35-41-1-1; Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1(1).”
Wilson v. State, 697 N.E.2d 466 (Ind. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Compare Ind.Code Ann. §§ 35-41-1-1, 35-42-5-1 (West Supp.”
An-Hung Yao & Yu-Ting Lin v. State of Indiana, 975 N.E.2d 1273 (Ind. 2012).
· cites it 2× “We first observe that Indiana statutes do not list jurisdiction as an element of the offenses for which these Defendants are charged.”
Tyreese Taylor-Bey v. State of Indiana, 53 N.E.3d 1230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “See Ind.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.”
— Ind. Code § 35-41-1-1(1) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-41-1-1(a)(1) — 2 cases
— Ind. Code § 35-41-1-1(a)(5) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-41-1-1(b) — 4 cases
Allen v. Great Am. Reserve Ins. Co., 766 N.E.2d 1157 (Ind. 2002).
“Section 35-41-1-1(b) of the Indiana Code sets forth the cireumstances under which a person may be convicted under Indiana law.”
Koch v. State, 952 N.E.2d 359 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
“[9] Ind.Code § 35-41-1-1(b) provides that "[a] person may be convicted under Indiana law of an offense if .”
Tyreese Taylor-Bey v. State of Indiana, 53 N.E.3d 1230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
“See Ind.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.”
— Ind. Code § 35-41-1-1(b)(1) — 7 cases
Allen v. Great Am. Reserve Ins. Co., 766 N.E.2d 1157 (Ind. 2002).
“Section 35-41-1-1(b) of the Indiana Code sets forth the cireumstances under which a person may be convicted under Indiana law.”
Alkhalidi v. State, 753 N.E.2d 625 (Ind. 2001).
“Ind.Code § 35-41-1-1(b)(1) (1998); McKinney v.”
Ortiz v. State, 766 N.E.2d 370 (Ind. 2002).
“*374 A person may be convicted of a crime in Indiana if either the conduct or the result that is an element of the offense occurred in Indiana IC. § 35-41-1-1(b)(1). Territorial jurisdiction, which relates to the authority of the State to prosecute a person for an act committed…”
Koch v. State, 952 N.E.2d 359 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
“[9] Ind.Code § 35-41-1-1(b) provides that "[a] person may be convicted under Indiana law of an offense if .”
— Ind. Code § 35-41-1-1(b)(3) — 1 case
Smith v. State, 809 N.E.2d 938 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
“The authority of the State of Indiana to institute criminal prosecutions is determined by the jurisdictional statute, Ind.Code § 35-41-1-1. Id. Under Ind.Code § 35-41-1-1(b)(3), "[al person may be convicted under Indiana law of an offense if .”
— Ind. Code § 35-41-1-1(b)(4) — 1 case
Allen v. Great Am. Reserve Ins. Co., 766 N.E.2d 1157 (Ind. 2002).
“Section 35-41-1-1(b) of the Indiana Code sets forth the cireumstances under which a person may be convicted under Indiana law.”
— Ind. Code § 35-41-1-1(c) — 1 case
State v. Wogenstahl (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 6873 (Ohio 2017).
“Therefore, it appears that Wogenstahl will not be able to escape the jurisdiction of the Indiana courts.9 {¶ 73} As we recognized in Yarbrough, “[t]he General Assembly has not authorized an Ohio court of common pleas to exercise jurisdiction over the prosecution of a defendant…”
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.