Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-41-2-1 (2026)
Voluntary conduct
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 1. (a) A person commits an offense only if he voluntarily engages in conduct in violation of the statute defining the offense. However, a person who omits to perform an act commits an offense only if he has a statutory, common law, or contractual duty to perform the act.
(b) If possession of property constitutes any part of the prohibited conduct, it is a defense that the person who possessed the property was not aware of his possession for a time sufficient for him to have terminated his possession.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.3; Acts 1978, P.L.144, SEC.3; P.L.311-1983, SEC.30.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Sanchez v. State, 749 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. 2001).
Sanchez v. State, 749 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. 2001). “See Ind. Code § 35-41-2-1 (1998); cf. McClain v.”
O'connell v. State, 970 N.E.2d 168 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “at 67 (citing I.C. § 35-41-2-1). The trial court gave the jury only this last instruction tracking the language of Indiana Code section 35-41-2-1 and rejected O'Connell's other tendered instructions.”
Sanders v. State, 466 N.E.2d 424 (Ind. 1984). “1984) but that he was raising a defense of involuntariness pursuant to Ind.Code § 35-41-2-1. Appellant further claimed that there are two separate defenses available to those forced to commit criminal acts against their will, one being that the act was not voluntary (§…”
McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2d 104 (Ind. 1997). “Because Indiana Code § 35-41-2-1 was modeled on the Commission’s recommendations, the Commission’s comments on the purpose of the statute are instructive.”
Engelica E. Castillo v. State of Indiana, 974 N.E.2d 458 (Ind. 2012). “Under Indiana Code Section 35-41-2-1(a), a person can commit an offense by failing to act "only if [s]he has a statutory, common law, or contractual duty to perform the act.”
United States v. Scott, 990 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2021). “5/2-2, 5/4-1; Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-2-1 (a); Iowa Code Ann.”
Forrest v. State, 757 N.E.2d 1003 (Ind. 2001). “" Ind.Code § 35-41-2-1. The defendant acknowledges that the "knowingly" element may be inferred from surrounding cireumstances.”
Duff v. State, 508 N.E.2d 17 (Ind. 1987). “4, he cites Ind. Code § 35-41-2-1 (b), which reads: "If possession of property constitutes any part of the prohibited conduct, it is a defense that the person who possessed the property was not aware of his possession for a time sufficient for him to have terminated his…”
State v. Keihn, 542 N.E.2d 963 (Ind. 1989). “However, a person who omits to perform an act commits an offense only if he has a statutory, common law, or contractual duty to perform the act. [3] The original enactment, Ind.”
Hanson v. State, 704 N.E.2d 152 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “The appellant offered an instruction paralleling Indiana Code § 35-41-2-1, which states: If possession of property constitutes any part of the prohibited conduct, it is a defense that the person who possessed the property was not aware of his possession for a time sufficient for…”
Whipple v. State, 523 N.E.2d 1363 (Ind. 1988). “Ind.Code § 35-41-2-1. The jury was instructed on the voluntariness requirement, but declined to absolve defend *1373 ant of criminal liability on this basis.”
Baird v. State, 688 N.E.2d 911 (Ind. 1997). “Also on direct appeal, Baird argued that evidence of irresistible impulse provided a factual basis that was sufficient to require the State to prove that Baird acted voluntarily pursuant to the statutory voluntary act requirement, Indiana Code § 35-41-2-1(a). Id. at 1176-77.”
— Ind. Code § 35-41-2-1(a) — 10 cases
O'connell v. State, 970 N.E.2d 168 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “at 67 (citing I.C. § 35-41-2-1). The trial court gave the jury only this last instruction tracking the language of Indiana Code section 35-41-2-1 and rejected O'Connell's other tendered instructions.”
Engelica E. Castillo v. State of Indiana, 974 N.E.2d 458 (Ind. 2012). “Under Indiana Code Section 35-41-2-1(a), a person can commit an offense by failing to act "only if [s]he has a statutory, common law, or contractual duty to perform the act.”
State v. Keihn, 542 N.E.2d 963 (Ind. 1989). “However, a person who omits to perform an act commits an offense only if he has a statutory, common law, or contractual duty to perform the act. [3] The original enactment, Ind.”
McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2d 104 (Ind. 1997). “Because Indiana Code § 35-41-2-1 was modeled on the Commission’s recommendations, the Commission’s comments on the purpose of the statute are instructive.”
Baird v. State, 688 N.E.2d 911 (Ind. 1997). “Also on direct appeal, Baird argued that evidence of irresistible impulse provided a factual basis that was sufficient to require the State to prove that Baird acted voluntarily pursuant to the statutory voluntary act requirement, Indiana Code § 35-41-2-1(a). Id. at 1176-77.”
— Ind. Code § 35-41-2-1(b) — 5 cases
Duff v. State, 508 N.E.2d 17 (Ind. 1987). “4, he cites Ind. Code § 35-41-2-1 (b), which reads: "If possession of property constitutes any part of the prohibited conduct, it is a defense that the person who possessed the property was not aware of his possession for a time sufficient for him to have terminated his…”
Randolph v. State, 695 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).
Nichols v. State, 683 N.E.2d 1358 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).
Tervarus L. Gary v. State of Indiana (Ind. 2026).
Tervarus L. Gary v. State of Indiana (Ind. 2026).
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.