Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-41-3-6 (2026)
Mental disease or defect
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 6. (a) A person is not responsible for having engaged in prohibited conduct if, as a result of mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the offense.
(b) As used in this section, "mental disease or defect" means a severely abnormal mental condition that grossly and demonstrably impairs a person's perception, but the term does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated unlawful or antisocial conduct.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.11; P.L.184-1984, SEC.1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 132
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. 2010).
Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. 2010). “[8] Indiana Code section 35-41-3-6 provides that a person is not criminally responsible for engaging in criminal acts "if, as a result of mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the offense," and it defines a "mental…”
Baer v. State, 866 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. 2007). “In the notice, however, the defendant advised his intention to assert the defense of mental disease or defect "as set out in" Indiana Code § 35-41-3-6. Appellant's App'x.”
Wisehart v. State, 693 N.E.2d 23 (Ind. 1998). “Ind.Code § 35-41-3-6(a) (1982). Mental disease or defect was not defined except to exclude any "abnormality manifested only by repeated unlawful or antisocial conduct.”
Alan L. Matheney v. Rondle Anderson, 253 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2001). “1997), citing Ind.Code § 35-41-3-6 (West 1986). In contrast, it is a mitigating factor at sentencing .”
McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2d 104 (Ind. 1997). “” The court held that McClain’s evidence related to automatism was a “mental disease or defect” within the meaning of Indiana Code § 35-41-3-6 and therefore had to be presented under the insanity statute.”
Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “It is the defendant who bears the burden of establishing the insanity defense by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Lori Barcroft v. State of Indiana, 111 N.E.3d 997 (Ind. 2018). “" I.C. § 35-41-3-6(a) (1982), repealed by Pub.”
Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 2004). “Pursuant to Indiana Code Annotated § 35-41-3-6 (West 1998), "A person is not responsible for having engaged in prohibited conduct if, as a result of mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the offense.”
Donald W. Myers, III. v. State of Indiana, 27 N.E.3d 1069 (Ind. 2015). “2d at 708 ; See also Ind. Code § 35-41-3-6 (a). To successfully assert this defense, an individual must prove by a preponderance of the evidence: “(1) that he or she suffers from a mental illness and (2) that the mental illness rendered him or her unable to appreciate the…”
Christopher M. Stevens v. Daniel McBride, 489 F.3d 883 (7th Cir. 2007). “” Ind.Code § 35-41-3-6. This is a difficult standard to meet; the defendant carries the burden of proof and the Indiana Supreme Court has made clear that it will reverse a trial court’s denial of an insanity claim “only when the evidence is without conflict and leads only to the…”
Stevens v. State, 770 N.E.2d 739 (Ind. 2002). “The post-conviction court concluded, in part: With the benefit of hindsight, Petitioner's present counsel suggest that trial counsel should have adopted the defense of mental disease or defect (Ind.Code § 35-41-3-6) and should have presented psychiatric evidence that Petitioner…”
Schmid v. State, 804 N.E.2d 174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “The statutory defense of insanity is set forth in Ind.Code § 35-41-3-6, as follows: (a) A person is not responsible for having engaged in prohibited conduct if, as a result of mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of…”
— Ind. Code § 35-41-3-6(a) — 41 cases
Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. 2010). “[8] Indiana Code section 35-41-3-6 provides that a person is not criminally responsible for engaging in criminal acts "if, as a result of mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the offense," and it defines a "mental…”
Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “It is the defendant who bears the burden of establishing the insanity defense by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Alan L. Matheney v. Rondle Anderson, 253 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2001). “1997), citing Ind.Code § 35-41-3-6 (West 1986). In contrast, it is a mitigating factor at sentencing .”
Wisehart v. State, 693 N.E.2d 23 (Ind. 1998). “Ind.Code § 35-41-3-6(a) (1982). Mental disease or defect was not defined except to exclude any "abnormality manifested only by repeated unlawful or antisocial conduct.”
Jeffrey A. Weisheit v. State of Indiana, 109 N.E.3d 978 (Ind. 2018).
— Ind. Code § 35-41-3-6(b) — 17 cases
Lori Barcroft v. State of Indiana, 111 N.E.3d 997 (Ind. 2018). “" I.C. § 35-41-3-6(a) (1982), repealed by Pub.”
Wisehart v. State, 693 N.E.2d 23 (Ind. 1998). “Ind.Code § 35-41-3-6(a) (1982). Mental disease or defect was not defined except to exclude any "abnormality manifested only by repeated unlawful or antisocial conduct.”
Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 2004). “Pursuant to Indiana Code Annotated § 35-41-3-6 (West 1998), "A person is not responsible for having engaged in prohibited conduct if, as a result of mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the offense.”
Tabor v. State, 461 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 1984).
Jones v. State, 825 N.E.2d 926 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
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.