Sec. 11. (a) As used in this section, "defendant"
refers to an individual charged with any crime involving the use of
force against a person.
(b) This section applies under the following circumstances when the
defendant in a prosecution raises the issue that the defendant was at the
time of the alleged crime suffering from the effects of battery as a result
of the past course of conduct of the individual who is the victim of the
alleged crime:
(1) The defendant raises the issue that the defendant was not
responsible as a result of mental disease or defect under section
6 of this chapter, rendering the defendant unable to appreciate the
wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the crime.
(2) The defendant claims to have used justifiable reasonable force
under section 2 of this chapter. The defendant has the burden of
going forward to produce evidence from which a trier of fact
could find support for the reasonableness of the defendant's belief
in the imminence of the use of unlawful force or, when deadly
force is employed, the imminence of serious bodily injury to the
defendant or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony.
(c) If a defendant proposes to claim the use of justifiable reasonable
force under subsection (b)(2), the defendant must file a written motion
of that intent with the trial court not later than:
(1) twenty (20) days if the defendant is charged with a felony; or
(2) ten (10) days if the defendant is charged only with one (1) or
more misdemeanors;
before the omnibus date. However, in the interest of justice and upon
a showing of good cause, the court may permit the filing to be made at
any time before the commencement of the trial.
(d) The introduction of any expert testimony under this section shall
be in accordance with the Indiana Rules of Evidence.
As added by P.L.210-1997, SEC.5.
Notes of Decisions
Danielle Green v. State of Indiana, 65 N.E.3d 620 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 5× “On August 29, 2014, Green filed a Notice of Affirmative Defenses asserting that she intended to pursue the defense of insanity pursuant to Indiana Code 35-41-3-6 and that she intended to present evidence that she acted in self-defense, including evidence of domestic violence…”
Christina Schermerhorn v. State of Indiana, 61 N.E.3d 375 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 6× “She asserted she was not criminally liable for her attack on Stanley pursuant to the “effects of battery” statute, Indiana Code section 35-41-3-11. That statute provides, in relevant part: (b) This section applies under the following circumstances when the defendant in a…”
Anastazia Schmid v. State of Indiana, 972 N.E.2d 949 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 4× “Whether her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the defense of “Justified Reasonable Force” pursuant to Ind.Code § 35-41-3-11; 2. Whether her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to demand a second competency hearing after the court found Schmid competent to…”
Marley v. State, 729 N.E.2d 1011 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 21× “The trial court denied the State's motion to preclude Ferraro's testimony, ruling that his testimony was relevant and admissible if the defense filed notice of a defense specified under the effects of battery statute, Ind.Code § 35-41-3-11. The court indicated that Marley could…”
State of Indiana v. Shianne Brooks-Brown (Ind. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 12× “I.C. § 35-41-3-11. However, our General Assembly’s codification of the effects-of-battery defense had no impact on the Barrett panel’s well-founded assessment that criminal offenses require the fact-finder to “resort to inferential reasoning” to ascertain whether the defendant…”
David Bryan Cunningham v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “1 A 1 Cunningham also argues that the trial court denied his proposed self-defense instruction based on its erroneous finding that the request was untimely pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-41-3-11 , also known as the “effects of battery statute.”
Peggy Sue Higginson v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “On October 3, 2018, Higginson filed a notice of intent to raise a claim of self- Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2634 | April 28, 2023 Page 7 of 26 defense under Indiana Code section 35-41-3-11(b)(2) (effects-of-battery-statute) through Dr.”
Jackson Porter v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “” Ind. Code § 35-41-3-11 (b) (1997). The General Assembly has defined the effects of battery in relevant part as follows: a psychological condition of an individual who has suffered repeated physical or sexual abuse inflicted by another individual who is the: (1) victim of an…”
Ind. Code § 35-41-3-11(b): 1 case
State of Indiana v. Shianne Brooks-Brown (Ind. Ct. App. 2024).
“I.C. § 35-41-3-11. However, our General Assembly’s codification of the effects-of-battery defense had no impact on the Barrett panel’s well-founded assessment that criminal offenses require the fact-finder to “resort to inferential reasoning” to ascertain whether the defendant…”
Ind. Code § 35-41-3-11(b)(1): 2 cases
Marley v. State, 729 N.E.2d 1011 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
“The trial court denied the State's motion to preclude Ferraro's testimony, ruling that his testimony was relevant and admissible if the defense filed notice of a defense specified under the effects of battery statute, Ind.Code § 35-41-3-11. The court indicated that Marley could…”
State of Indiana v. Shianne Brooks-Brown (Ind. Ct. App. 2024).
“I.C. § 35-41-3-11. However, our General Assembly’s codification of the effects-of-battery defense had no impact on the Barrett panel’s well-founded assessment that criminal offenses require the fact-finder to “resort to inferential reasoning” to ascertain whether the defendant…”
Ind. Code § 35-41-3-11(b)(2): 2 cases
Peggy Sue Higginson v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2023).
“On October 3, 2018, Higginson filed a notice of intent to raise a claim of self- Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2634 | April 28, 2023 Page 7 of 26 defense under Indiana Code section 35-41-3-11(b)(2) (effects-of-battery-statute) through Dr.”
State of Indiana v. Shianne Brooks-Brown (Ind. Ct. App. 2024).
“I.C. § 35-41-3-11. However, our General Assembly’s codification of the effects-of-battery defense had no impact on the Barrett panel’s well-founded assessment that criminal offenses require the fact-finder to “resort to inferential reasoning” to ascertain whether the defendant…”
Ind. Code § 35-41-3-11(c): 1 case
State of Indiana v. Shianne Brooks-Brown (Ind. Ct. App. 2024).
“I.C. § 35-41-3-11. However, our General Assembly’s codification of the effects-of-battery defense had no impact on the Barrett panel’s well-founded assessment that criminal offenses require the fact-finder to “resort to inferential reasoning” to ascertain whether the 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.