Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-41-4-1 (2026)
Standard of proof; insanity defense
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 1. (a) A person may be convicted of an offense only if his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish the defense of insanity (IC 35-41-3-6) by a preponderance of the evidence.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.16; Acts 1978, P.L.145, SEC.9.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 83
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 2004).
Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 2004). “Ind.Code Ann. § 35-41-4-1 (West 1998). "This Court has held that although the State is required to prove the defendant committed the act `knowingly' this is not tantamount to requiring the State to prove that the defendant was `sane.”
Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. 2010). “See I.C. § 35-41-4-1(a); see also In re Winship, 397 U.”
Price v. State, 412 N.E.2d 783 (Ind. 1980). “Indiana Code § 35-41-4-1, provides: "(a) A person may be convicted of an offense only if his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Lowery v. State, 547 N.E.2d 1046 (Ind. 1989). “Ind. Code § 35-41-4-1 (b). Assuming, arguendo, that waiver is inapplicable, we nevertheless find that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for directed finding (judgment on the evidence) with regard to Count III at the close of the State's case-in-chief.”
Lori Barcroft v. State of Indiana, 111 N.E.3d 997 (Ind. 2018). “Ind. Code § 35-41-4-1 (a). But a defendant may avoid criminal responsibility by invoking the insanity defense.”
Jason M. Morris v. State of Indiana, 114 N.E.3d 531 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “Ind. Code § 35-41-4-1 (a). "A person who knowingly or intentionally, in a public place .”
Matheney v. State, 688 N.E.2d 883 (Ind. 1997). “Matheney claims that various preliminary and guilt phase jury instructions, ( see T.”
Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “To sustain a conviction, the State must prove each element of the charged offense — here attempted murder — beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Donald W. Myers, III. v. State of Indiana, 27 N.E.3d 1069 (Ind. 2015). “See Ind. Code § 35-41-4-1 (a) (2014). Criminal responsibility can be avoided if the defendant can successfully raise and establish the “insanity defense.”
Schmid v. State, 804 N.E.2d 174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “IC. § 35-41-4-1(b). The determination of sanity is a question for the trier of fact.”
Heald v. State, 492 N.E.2d 671 (Ind. 1986). “See Ind. Code § 35-41-4-1 (b). The trial judge has the duty to manage the trial and has the discretion to make determinations and rulings involving the examination of witnesses.”
Ramos v. State, 433 N.E.2d 757 (Ind. 1982). “Ind.Code § 35-41-4-1 (Burns 1979 Repl.). We have consistently upheld this statute against constitutional arguments.”
— Ind. Code § 35-41-4-1(3) — 1 case
McBride v. State, 785 N.E.2d 312 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
— Ind. Code § 35-41-4-1(a) — 9 cases
Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “To sustain a conviction, the State must prove each element of the charged offense — here attempted murder — beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. 2010). “See I.C. § 35-41-4-1(a); see also In re Winship, 397 U.”
Rodney G. Patterson v. State of Indiana, 110 N.E.3d 429 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
Jennifer M. Wright v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
Phillip B. Kress v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
— Ind. Code § 35-41-4-1(b) — 24 cases
Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 2004). “Ind.Code Ann. § 35-41-4-1 (West 1998). "This Court has held that although the State is required to prove the defendant committed the act `knowingly' this is not tantamount to requiring the State to prove that the defendant was `sane.”
Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. 2010). “See I.C. § 35-41-4-1(a); see also In re Winship, 397 U.”
Matheney v. State, 688 N.E.2d 883 (Ind. 1997). “Matheney claims that various preliminary and guilt phase jury instructions, ( see T.”
Lori Barcroft v. State of Indiana, 111 N.E.3d 997 (Ind. 2018). “Ind. Code § 35-41-4-1 (a). But a defendant may avoid criminal responsibility by invoking the insanity defense.”
Schmid v. State, 804 N.E.2d 174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “IC. § 35-41-4-1(b). The determination of sanity is a question for the trier of fact.”
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.