Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-41-4-5 (2025)
Former prosecution in another jurisdiction a bar
✓ 2025 Indiana Code: the 2026 session is not included
Sec. 5. In a case in which the alleged conduct constitutes an offense within the concurrent jurisdiction of Indiana and another jurisdiction, a former prosecution in any other jurisdiction is a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same conduct in Indiana, if the former prosecution resulted in an acquittal or a conviction of the defendant or in an improper termination under section 3 of this chapter.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.20.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2023 · leading case: Smith v. State, 993 N.E.2d 1185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
Smith v. State, 993 N.E.2d 1185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “I.C. § 35-41-4-5. Both the federal indictment and the state charges arise from the overarching Ponzi scheme involving numerous victims in multiple states who were harmed by the actions of Smith and Snelling.”
Wilson v. State, 383 N.E.2d 304 (Ind. 1978). “Was the prosecution of the defendant barred by either Ind. Code § 35-41-4-5 (Burns 1978 Supp.) or Ind.”
Swenson v. State, 868 N.E.2d 540 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Ind.Code § 35-41-4-5 (West 2004). That is, a former conviction in any other jurisdiction bars subsequent prosecution by this State for the “same conduct.”
Haggard v. State, 445 N.E.2d 969 (Ind. 1983). “Ind.Code § 35-41-4-5 (Burns 1979 Repl.); Wilson v.”
State v. Rogers, 566 P.2d 1142 (N.M. 1977). “38, § 3-4(c) (1974); Ind. Code § 35-41-4-5 (Supp. 1976); Kan. Stat.”
Jerry A. Smith v. State of Indiana, 44 N.E.3d 82 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “After pleading guilty in federal court, Smith filed a motion to dismiss the Franklin County charges, contending that the State’s prosecution was barred by Indiana Code section 35-41-4-5, our statutory double jeopardy provision pertaining to prosecution by dual sovereigns.”
Hoffman v. State, 957 N.E.2d 992 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “Ind.Code § 35-41-4-5 (emphasis added). More to the point, a former conviction in any other jurisdiction bars subsequent prosecution by this State for the “same conduct.”
Justin Brewer v. State of Indiana, 35 N.E.3d 284 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “” I.C. § 35-41-4-5. That is not the case with respect to his Kentucky conviction for fleeing from the Kentucky officer and his Indiana conviction for resisting Indiana’s law enforcement.”
Jerry A. Smith v. State of Indiana, 993 N.E.2d 1182 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “Indiana’s double-jeopardy statute provides: In a case in which the alleged conduct constitutes an offense within the concurrent jurisdiction of Indiana and another jurisdiction, a former prosecution in any other jurisdiction is a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same…”
Kevin Hoffman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), No. 46A03-1606-CR-1497 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2017). “[9] Indiana Code Section 35-41-4-5 provides: In a case in which the alleged conduct constitutes an offense within the concurrent jurisdiction of Indiana and another jurisdiction, a former prosecution in any other jurisdiction is a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same…”
Richard W. Robb, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), No. 82A01-1502-CR-52 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2015). “Robb contends that Ind. Code § 35-41-4-5 bars his subsequent prosecution in Indiana for dealing in methamphetamine because Robb claims the Indiana offense constitutes the “same conduct” for which he has already been convicted in the Eastern District of Missouri.”
Amanda Dill v. State of Indiana, 82 N.E.3d 909 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “Ind. Code § 35-41-4-5 (1977). Unlike the analysis used for double jeopardy challenges brought under the state and federal constitutions, a challenge brought under this statute requires examination of whether the charges brought in state and federal court involve the same conduct.”
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.