Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-41-3-8 (2026)
Duress
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 8. (a) It is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct was compelled to do so by threat of imminent serious bodily injury to himself or another person. With respect to offenses other than felonies, it is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct was compelled to do so by force or threat of force. Compulsion under this section exists only if the force, threat, or circumstances are such as would render a person of reasonable firmness incapable of resisting the pressure.
(b) This section does not apply to a person who:
(1) recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally placed himself in a situation in which it was foreseeable that he would be subjected to duress; or
(2) committed an offense against the person as defined in IC 35-42.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.13.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: Tobar v. State, 740 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. 2000).
Tobar v. State, 740 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. 2000). “" Ind. Code § 35-41-3-8 (1998). Although there was plenty of evidence attesting to William's intimidating size, Ricky never expressed any fear of William to authorities, and there is nothing in the record suggesting Ricky feared his cousin, much less felt threatened by serious…”
Sanders v. State, 466 N.E.2d 424 (Ind. 1984). “The trial court was correct in finding that Appellant's defense was that of duress as defined in Ind.Code § 35-41-3-8, the proper law to apply in this case.”
Wilson v. Isaacs, 929 N.E.2d 200 (Ind. 2010). “" Ind.Code § 35-41-3-8(b). These factual issues remain for resolution at trial.”
George Moss v. State of Indiana, 13 N.E.3d 440 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “Per Indiana Code § 35-41-3-8, which states the defense of duress does not apply to a person that "committed the offense against the person as defined in Ind.”
Lohmiller v. State, 884 N.E.2d 903 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Indiana Code section 35-41-3-8 provides that it is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct "was compelled to do so by threat of imminent serious bodily injury to himself or another person. With respect to offenses other than felonies, it is a defense that…”
Steven Bethel v. State of Indiana, 110 N.E.3d 444 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “" Ind. Code § 35-41-3-8 (1977). A successful defense of duress establishes a "lack of criminal culpability" for "otherwise criminal acts.”
Murrell v. State, 960 N.E.2d 854 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “With respect to offenses other than felonies, it is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct was compelled to do so by force or threat of force. Compulsion under this section exists only if the force, threat, or circumstances are such as would render a…”
Tully v. State, 730 P.2d 1206 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986). “§ 16-3-26 (West 1984) (murder); Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-3-8 (West 1978); Iowa Code Ann.”
Pine v. State, 408 N.E.2d 1271 (Ind. 1980). “The statute provides: (a) It is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct was compelled to do so by threat of imminent serious bodily injury to himself or another person.”
Riley M. Randall v. State of Indiana, 115 N.E.3d 526 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “Ind. Code § 35-41-3-8 (b)(2) (emphasis added).”
United States v. Larry Wayne Lafleur, United States of Am. v. Nick Michael Holm, 971 F.2d 200 (9th Cir. 1992). “§ 16-3-26; Ind.Code § 35-41-3-8; Kan.Stat. Ann. § 21-3209; La.”
Tom v. Voida, 654 N.E.2d 776 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). “Indiana Code § 35-41-3-8 provides in pertinent part that: (b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest.”
— Ind. Code § 35-41-3-8(a) — 5 cases
Gerardo Hurtado v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).
State of Indiana v. Shianne Brooks-Brown (Ind. Ct. App. 2024).
Aaron Johnson v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
John Hernandez v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
Cody A. German v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
— Ind. Code § 35-41-3-8(b) — 2 cases
Wilson v. Isaacs, 929 N.E.2d 200 (Ind. 2010). “" Ind.Code § 35-41-3-8(b). These factual issues remain for resolution at trial.”
Tobar v. State, 740 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. 2000). “" Ind. Code § 35-41-3-8 (1998). Although there was plenty of evidence attesting to William's intimidating size, Ricky never expressed any fear of William to authorities, and there is nothing in the record suggesting Ricky feared his cousin, much less felt threatened by serious…”
— Ind. Code § 35-41-3-8(b)(2) — 2 cases
Riley M. Randall v. State of Indiana, 115 N.E.3d 526 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “Ind. Code § 35-41-3-8 (b)(2) (emphasis added).”
Aaron Johnson v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
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.