Ind. Code » Title 35
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 35-48-2-1 (2026)

Considerations of board determinations on substances; exclusion of a narcotic substance from schedule

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 1. (a) The board shall administer this article and may recommend to the general assembly the addition, deletion, or rescheduling of all substances listed in the schedules in sections 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 of this chapter by submitting in an electronic format under IC 5-14-6 a report of such recommendations to the legislative council. In making a determination regarding a substance, the board shall consider the following:

(1) The actual or relative potential for abuse.

(2) The scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.

(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the substance.

(4) The history and current pattern of abuse.

(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.

(6) The risk to public health.

(7) The potential of the substance to produce psychic or physiological dependence liability.

(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this article.

     (b) After considering the factors enumerated in subsection (a), the board shall make findings and recommendations concerning the control of the substance if it finds the substance has a potential for abuse.

     (c) If the board finds that a substance is an immediate precursor, substances which are precursors of the controlled precursor shall not be subject to control solely because they are precursors of the controlled precursor.

     (d) If any substance is designated or rescheduled to a more restrictive schedule as a controlled substance under federal law and notice is given to the board, the board shall recommend similar control of the substance under this article in the board's report to the general assembly, unless the board objects to inclusion or rescheduling. In that case, the board shall publish the reasons for objection and afford all interested parties an opportunity to be heard. At the conclusion of the hearing, the board shall publish its findings.

     (e) If a substance is rescheduled to a less restrictive schedule or deleted as a controlled substance under federal law, the substance is rescheduled or deleted under this article. If the board objects to inclusion, rescheduling, or deletion of the substance, the board shall notify the chairman of the legislative council not more than thirty (30) days after the federal law is changed and the substance may not be rescheduled or deleted until the conclusion of the next complete session of the general assembly. The notice from the board to the chairman of the legislative council must be published.

     (f) The board shall conduct hearings regarding revocations, suspensions, and restrictions of registrations as provided in IC 35-48-3-4. All hearings shall be conducted in accordance with IC 4-21.5-3.

     (g) Authority to control under this section does not extend to distilled spirits, wine, or malt beverages, as those terms are defined or used in IC 7.1, or to tobacco.

     (h) The board shall exclude any nonnarcotic substance from a schedule if that substance may, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or state law, be sold over the counter without a prescription.

As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.7. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.344, SEC.1; P.L.137-1985, SEC.17; P.L.200-1987, SEC.4; P.L.188-1989, SEC.4; P.L.33-1993, SEC.73; P.L.163-1994, SEC.2; P.L.177-1997, SEC.8; P.L.14-2000, SEC.77; P.L.107-2002, SEC.31; P.L.28-2004, SEC.178; P.L.84-2010, SEC.92.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 78 cases, 1982–2010 · leading case: Bevill v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1247 (Ind. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bevill v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1247 (Ind. 1985). · cites it 6× “Code §§ 35-42-1-1 and 85-41-5-1; burglary, a class A felony, Ind.Code § 35-48-2-1, and burglary, a class B felony, Ind.”
Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904 (Ind. 2005). · cites it 2× “” Therefore, in order to convict Wright for burglary, the State bore the burden of proving that Wright broke and entered into the tobacco store with the intent to commit a felony therein, in this case, theft.”
Alvies v. State, 905 N.E.2d 57 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “Code § 35-42-83-38, burglary, as a Class B felony, Ind. Code § 35-48-2-1 , and auto theft, as a Class D felony, Ind.”
Pierce v. State, 761 N.E.2d 826 (Ind. 2002). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 35-48-2-1 (1998). To convict Pierce for robbery as a Class B felony, the State must show that Pierce: (1) knowingly or intentionally (2) took money (8) from the presence of the victim (4) by use of force or threat of force and (5) while armed with a deadly weapon or…”
Davis v. State, 770 N.E.2d 319 (Ind. 2002). · cites it 2× “Sufficiency of the Burglary Evidence Davis asserts that because Bentzler opened the door, there was insufficient evidence to support the breaking element of burglary. The State responds by arguing that a breaking occurred when Davis forced the door open.”
Wright v. State, 658 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 1995). · cites it 2× “1994) with Ind. Code § 35-48-2-1 (1993), "looking at both the statutes and the instrument by which the defendant was charged, it is clear that if he was guilty of the burglary, he was also guilty of a criminal trespass.”
White v. State, 846 N.E.2d 1026 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “I.C. § 35-48-2-1. The burglary is a Class B felony if the building or structure is a dwelling.”
McCovens v. State, 539 N.E.2d 26 (Ind. 1989). · cites it 4× “The element of "breaking" in Ind.Code § 35-48-2-1 may be proved entirely by circumstantial evidence.”
Bieghler v. State, 481 N.E.2d 78 (Ind. 1985). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 35-48-2-1 (Burns 1985) dictates that to prove a burglary requires the showing of a breaking and entering of the building or strue-ture of another person with intent to commit a felony therein.”
Joy v. State, 460 N.E.2d 551 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “At the time of this offense, the crime of burglary was defined in Indiana *557 Code section 35-48-2-1 (1979 Repl) 5 as: "A person who breaks and enters the building or structure of another person, with intent to commit a felony in it, commits burglary, a class C felony.”
Abercrombie v. State, 478 N.E.2d 1236 (Ind. 1985). · cites it 3× “This is a direct appeal from convictions of burglary, a class B felony, I.C. § 35-48-2-1, and theft, a class D felony, I.”
Dorsey v. State, 490 N.E.2d 260 (Ind. 1986). · cites it 2× “This is a direct appeal from a jury conviection for burglary, a class B felony, Ind. Code § 35-48-2-1 (Burns 1985 Repl.) and two counts of conversion, a class A misdemeanor, Ind.”
Show all 78 citing cases →
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.