Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-41-1-16 (2026)
Repealed
✓ current as of May 2026
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.17. Repealed by P.L.114-2012, SEC.110.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48
cases, 1984–2020 · leading case: Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999).
Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999). “CODE § 35-41-1-16 (1998) (defining "included offense").”
Wright v. State, 658 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 1995). “If (a) the alleged lesser included offense may be established "by proof of the same material elements or less than all the material elements" defining the crime charged, Ind.Code § 35-41-1-16(1) (1993), Aschliman v.”
Iddings v. State, 772 N.E.2d 1006 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “" Indiana Code Section 35-41-1-16 states: `Included offense' means an offense that: (1) is established by proof of the same material elements or less than all the material elements required to establish the commission of the offense charged; (2) consists of an attempt to commit…”
Goudy v. State, 689 N.E.2d 686 (Ind. 1997). “Ind.Code § 35-41-1-16. Comparing the robbery and carjacking statutes, 3 robbery as a class A felony is defined as: A person who knowingly or intentionally takes property from another person or from the presence of another person: (1) by using or threatening the use of force on…”
Sering v. State, 488 N.E.2d 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986). “"Included offense," as defined by Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-1-16 (Burns 1985), is an offense that: 1) is established by proof of the same material elements or less than all the material elements required to establish the commission of the offense charged; 2) consists of an attempt…”
Ledesma v. State, 761 N.E.2d 896 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “In Wright, our supreme court analyzed inherently included offenses by looking to Indiana Code § 35-41-1-16, specifically subsection (1) and the culpability prong of subsection (8).”
Sturgeon v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1173 (Ind. 1999). “(quoting Ind.Code Ann. § 35-41-1-16(1) (West 1998)).”
Hardister v. State, 849 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 2006). “I.C. § 35-41-1-16(1). For these purposes, simple possession of cocaine is therefore a lesser included offense of dealing as a B felony (possession with intent to deliver) and both are lesser included offenses of Class A dealing (possession of three grams with intent to deliver).”
Micheau v. State, 893 N.E.2d 1053 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “" Ind.Code § 35-41-1-16 provides: "Included offense" means an offense that: (1) is established by proof of the same material elements or less than all the material elements required to establish the commission of the offense charged; (2) consists of an attempt to commit the…”
Johnson v. State, 959 N.E.2d 334 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “2d 1160, 1161 , or (b) the only feature distinguishing the alleged lesser included offense from the crime charged is that a lesser culpability is required to establish the commission of the lesser offense, Ind. Code § 35-41-1-16 (3) (1993), Holder v.”
Cohen v. State, 714 N.E.2d 1168 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “1982); Ind. Code § 35-41-1-16 . 14 The first category entails those offenses which are inherently included in a greater offense.”
Bush v. State, 772 N.E.2d 1020 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “" Indiana Code Section 35-41-1-16 states: 'Included offense' means an offense that: (1) is established by proof of the same material elements or less than all the material elements required to establish the commission of the offense charged; (2) consists of an attempt to commit…”
— Ind. Code § 35-41-1-16(1) — 12 cases
Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999). “CODE § 35-41-1-16 (1998) (defining "included offense").”
Wright v. State, 658 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 1995). “If (a) the alleged lesser included offense may be established "by proof of the same material elements or less than all the material elements" defining the crime charged, Ind.Code § 35-41-1-16(1) (1993), Aschliman v.”
Sturgeon v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1173 (Ind. 1999). “(quoting Ind.Code Ann. § 35-41-1-16(1) (West 1998)).”
Hardister v. State, 849 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 2006). “I.C. § 35-41-1-16(1). For these purposes, simple possession of cocaine is therefore a lesser included offense of dealing as a B felony (possession with intent to deliver) and both are lesser included offenses of Class A dealing (possession of three grams with intent to deliver).”
Johnson v. State, 959 N.E.2d 334 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “2d 1160, 1161 , or (b) the only feature distinguishing the alleged lesser included offense from the crime charged is that a lesser culpability is required to establish the commission of the lesser offense, Ind. Code § 35-41-1-16 (3) (1993), Holder v.”
— Ind. Code § 35-41-1-16(2) — 1 case
Damonta Lamont Jarrett v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).
— Ind. Code § 35-41-1-16(3) — 7 cases
Wright v. State, 658 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 1995). “If (a) the alleged lesser included offense may be established "by proof of the same material elements or less than all the material elements" defining the crime charged, Ind.Code § 35-41-1-16(1) (1993), Aschliman v.”
Guydell Watson v. State of Indiana, 972 N.E.2d 378 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
Massey v. State, 803 N.E.2d 1133 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
Sering v. State, 488 N.E.2d 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986). “"Included offense," as defined by Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-1-16 (Burns 1985), is an offense that: 1) is established by proof of the same material elements or less than all the material elements required to establish the commission of the offense charged; 2) consists of an attempt…”
Gale v. State, 882 N.E.2d 808 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
— Ind. Code § 35-41-1-16(8) — 3 cases
Wright v. State, 658 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 1995). “If (a) the alleged lesser included offense may be established "by proof of the same material elements or less than all the material elements" defining the crime charged, Ind.Code § 35-41-1-16(1) (1993), Aschliman v.”
Sering v. State, 488 N.E.2d 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986). “"Included offense," as defined by Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-1-16 (Burns 1985), is an offense that: 1) is established by proof of the same material elements or less than all the material elements required to establish the commission of the offense charged; 2) consists of an attempt…”
Simmons v. State, 793 N.E.2d 321 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
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.