Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-41-1-3 (2026)
Repealed
✓ current as of May 2026
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.4. Repealed by P.L.114-2012, SEC.80.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1991–2020 · leading case: Jones v. State, 775 N.E.2d 322 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
Jones v. State, 775 N.E.2d 322 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “See Ind.Code § 35-41-1-3 (1998) ("The definitions in [Chapter 1] apply throughout this title and to all other statutes relating to penal offenses.”
Jones v. State, 774 N.E.2d 957 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “See Ind.Code § 35-41-1-3 (1998) ("The definitions in [Chapter 1] apply throughout this title and to all other statutes relating to penal offenses.”
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Wills, 717 N.E.2d 151 (Ind. 1999). “CODE § 35-41-1-3 (1998) (applying definition to all statutes relating to penal offenses).”
Horne v. State, 572 N.E.2d 1333 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). “Code § 35-50-1-1 , as to trial court sentencing upon conviction of an offense, has no applicability to a civil judgment entered on a finding of a violation of an infraction.”
Griffith v. State, 791 N.E.2d 235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “This definition is made applicable to the issue of waiver of juvenile jurisdiction through Indiana Code § 35-41-1-3 (Burns Code Ed. Repl.”
Jones v. State, 777 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “See Ind.Code § 35-41-1-3 (1998) ("The definitions in [Chapter 1] apply throughout this title and to all other statutes relating to penal offenses.”
Marley v. State, 729 N.E.2d 1011 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “Effects of Battery Statute Our legislature has defined "effects of battery" and provided a procedural framework for its use as evidence in Ind. Code §§ 35-41-1-3 .3 and 35-41-3-11.”
Triplett v. State, 669 N.E.2d 993 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). “See IC § 35-41-1-3. The highlighted portion of the statute explicitly provides that a person is under lawful detention while in custody during transportation to or from a *995 penal facility for the purpose of obtaining medical treatment or diagnosis.”
Jerome Wilderness, Sr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). “[48] In looking at the instructions as a whole, they correctly stated the law as the jury was specifically informed in Final Instruction 12 that “[t]he State ha[d] the burden of disproving the defense of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt” and before the jury could find “the…”
Harrison v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 876 N.E.2d 814 (Ind. T.C. 2007). “See also Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-1-3 (West 2001) (stating that “[t]he definitions in this chapter apply throughout this title and to all other statutes relating to penal offenses”).”
Aloric Carson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “Ind. Code § 35-41-1-3 (a)(1) – (3). [10] Carson does not dispute that he was fighting in the early morning hours on September 14, 2013, but rather that he was acting in self-defense because one of the men who tried to rob his companion allegedly had a knife.”
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.