Sec. 2. A person who, with intent to cause a condition
of intoxication, euphoria, excitement, exhilaration, stupefaction, or
dulling of the senses, ingests or inhales the fumes of:
(1) model glue;
(2) a substance that contains:
(A) toluene;
(B) acetone;
(C) benzene;
(D) N-butyl nitrite;
(E) any aliphatic nitrite, unless prescribed by a physician;
(F) butane;
(G) amyl butrate;
(H) isobutyl nitrate;
(I) freon;
(J) chlorinated hydrocarbons;
(K) methylene chloride;
(L) hexane;
(M) ether;
(N) chloroform; or
(O) halothane; or
(3) any other chemical having the property of releasing toxic
vapors;
commits inhaling toxic vapors, a Class B misdemeanor.
[Pre-1993 Title 16 Recodification Citation:
16-6-8.9-1(a).]
As added by P.L.2-1993, SEC.189. Amended by P.L.151-2006,
SEC.20; P.L.9-2024, SEC.537.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 2001–2018 · leading case:
Vasquez v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1214 (Ind. 2001).
Vasquez v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1214 (Ind. 2001).
· cites it 3× “Ind. Code § 35-46-6-2 (1998). The evidence showed that Kelley and Knight entered the apartment and found a bottle of a clear liquid and a rag soaked in the same substance.”
Upp v. State, 808 N.E.2d 706 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “Upp ("Appellant") appeals his convictions of glue sniffing, a Class B misdemeanor, Ind. Code § 35-46-6-2 ; and public intoxication, a Class B misdemeanor, Ind.”
Johnathan Robinson v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 10× “The offense of inhaling toxic vapors is governed by Ind. Code § 35-46-6-2 , which provides: “A person who, with intent to cause a condition of intoxication, euphoria, excitement, exhilaration, stupefaction, or dulling of the senses, ingests or inhales the fumes of: .”
State of Indiana v. Randall Scott Stiverson (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “) On October 4, 2013, the trial court granted Stiverson’s motion to dismiss on the basis that on December 1, 2011, AM-2201 was not a drug listed under Indiana Code Section 35-46-6-2(2), and therefore Stiverson did not commit an offense.”
Enedeo Rodriguez, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “108; I.C. §§ 35-46-6-2(2); 35-41-2-4. [46] First, we must determine whether [Rodriguez] was associated with an “enterprise,” which is defined, among other things, as “a union, an association, or a group, whether a legal entity or merely associated in fact.”
— Ind. Code § 35-46-6-2(2) — 2 cases
Enedeo Rodriguez, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
“108; I.C. §§ 35-46-6-2(2); 35-41-2-4. [46] First, we must determine whether [Rodriguez] was associated with an “enterprise,” which is defined, among other things, as “a union, an association, or a group, whether a legal entity or merely associated in fact.”
State of Indiana v. Randall Scott Stiverson (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
“) On October 4, 2013, the trial court granted Stiverson’s motion to dismiss on the basis that on December 1, 2011, AM-2201 was not a drug listed under Indiana Code Section 35-46-6-2(2), and therefore Stiverson did not commit an offense.”
— Ind. Code § 35-46-6-2(3) — 1 case
State of Indiana v. Randall Scott Stiverson (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
“) On October 4, 2013, the trial court granted Stiverson’s motion to dismiss on the basis that on December 1, 2011, AM-2201 was not a drug listed under Indiana Code Section 35-46-6-2(2), and therefore Stiverson did not commit an offense.”
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.