Ind. Code » Title 35
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 35-47-5-13 (2025)

Unlawful use of body armor

✓ 2025 Indiana Code: the 2026 session is not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 13. (a) As used in this section, "body armor" means bullet resistant metal or other material worn by a person to provide protection from weapons or bodily injury.

     (b) A person who knowingly or intentionally uses body armor while committing a felony commits unlawful use of body armor, a Level 6 felony.

As added by P.L.227-1996, SEC.1. Amended by P.L.158-2013, SEC.597.

 

IC 35-47-6Chapter 6. Weapons on Aircraft

 

           35-47-6-0.1Repealed
           35-47-6-0.5Applicability of chapter
           35-47-6-1Firearm, explosive, or deadly weapon; possession in commercial or chartered aircraft
           35-47-6-1.1Undisclosed transport of dangerous device
           35-47-6-1.3Firearm, explosive, or deadly weapon; possession in controlled access areas of an airport
           35-47-6-1.4Unlawful entry to restricted area of airport
           35-47-6-1.6Disrupting operation of aircraft
           35-47-6-2Repealed
           35-47-6-3Consent to search of person or personal belongings
           35-47-6-4Action against airline company for denial of person refusing search to board aircraft

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2002–2018 · leading case: Mason v. State, 944 N.E.2d 68 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mason v. State, 944 N.E.2d 68 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 8× “Code § 35-44-3-3; and unlawful use of body armor, a Class D felony, I.C. § 35-47-5-13. We affirm. ISSUE Mason raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as follows: Whether the State produced sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crimes…”
Richard E. Simmons v. State of Indiana, 999 N.E.2d 1005 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “3 Ind. Code § 35-47-5-13 . 4 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-11 .”
Haggard v. State, 771 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Moreover, Haggard's trial counsel adamantly argued that his motion to dismiss was based upon the broadness doctrine, and not the vagueness doctrine.”
People v. Richardson, 2013 IL App (2d) 120119. “2002), where the court rejected the defendant’s contention that the Indiana statute prohibiting the use of body armor while committing a felony ( Ind. Code § 35-47-5-13 (1998)) was unconstitutionally vague.”
Timothy Rush v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), No. 34A02-1712-CR-2892 (Ind. Ct. App. June 7, 2018). · cites it 2× “4; Appellee’s Br. p. 4. They then assert that by agreement with the State Rush pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture for life, a Level 6 felony as a lesser included offense of Count 1.”
Zar Dyson v. State of Indiana, No. 27A02-1302-CR-135 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2014). · cites it 2× “4 I.C. § 35-47-5-13. 5 Ind. Code § 9-26-1-3 .”
Ind. Code § 35-47-5-13(b): 1 case
Mason v. State, 944 N.E.2d 68 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “Code § 35-44-3-3; and unlawful use of body armor, a Class D felony, I.C. § 35-47-5-13. We affirm. ISSUE Mason raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as follows: Whether the State produced sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crimes…”
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.