Ind. Code » Title 35
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10 (2026)

Dealing in marijuana, hash oil, hashish, or salvia

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

     Sec. 10. (a) A person who:

(1) knowingly or intentionally:

(A) manufactures;

(B) finances the manufacture of;

(C) delivers; or

(D) finances the delivery of;

marijuana, hash oil, hashish, or salvia, pure or adulterated; or

(2) possesses, with intent to:

(A) manufacture;

(B) finance the manufacture of;

(C) deliver; or

(D) finance the delivery of;

marijuana, hash oil, hashish, or salvia, pure or adulterated;

commits dealing in marijuana, hash oil, hashish, or salvia, a Class A misdemeanor, except as provided in subsections (b) through (d).

     (b) A person may be convicted of an offense under subsection (a)(2) only if:

(1) there is evidence in addition to the weight of the drug that the person intended to manufacture, finance the manufacture of, deliver, or finance the delivery of the drug; or

(2) the amount of the drug involved is at least:

(A) ten (10) pounds, if the drug is marijuana; or

(B) three hundred (300) grams, if the drug is hash oil, hashish, or salvia.

     (c) The offense is a Level 6 felony if:

(1) the person has a prior conviction for a drug offense and the amount of the drug involved is:

(A) less than thirty (30) grams of marijuana; or

(B) less than five (5) grams of hash oil, hashish, or salvia; or

(2) the amount of the drug involved is:

(A) at least thirty (30) grams but less than ten (10) pounds of marijuana; or

(B) at least five (5) grams but less than three hundred (300) grams of hash oil, hashish, or salvia.

     (d) The offense is a Level 5 felony if:

(1) the person has a prior conviction for a drug dealing offense and the amount of the drug involved is:

(A) at least thirty (30) grams but less than ten (10) pounds of marijuana; or

(B) at least five (5) grams but less than three hundred (300) grams of hash oil, hashish, or salvia;

(2) the:

(A) amount of the drug involved is:

(i) at least ten (10) pounds of marijuana; or

(ii) at least three hundred (300) grams of hash oil, hashish, or salvia; or

(B) offense involved a sale to a minor; or

(3) the:

(A) person is a retailer;

(B) marijuana, hash oil, hashish, or salvia is packaged in a manner that appears to be low THC hemp extract; and

(C) person knew or reasonably should have known that the product was marijuana, hash oil, hashish, or salvia.

As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.7. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.105; Acts 1979, P.L.303, SEC.11; Acts 1982, P.L.204, SEC.38; P.L.296-1987, SEC.11; P.L.165-1990, SEC.12; P.L.296-1995, SEC.9; P.L.65-1996, SEC.17; P.L.17-2001, SEC.26; P.L.138-2011, SEC.16; P.L.182-2011, SEC.16; P.L.78-2012, SEC.14; P.L.196-2013, SEC.21; P.L.158-2013, SEC.637; P.L.168-2014, SEC.100; P.L.44-2016, SEC.8; P.L.153-2018, SEC.25.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 151 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Gary Elvers v. State of Indiana, 22 N.E.3d 824 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gary Elvers v. State of Indiana, 22 N.E.3d 824 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 15× “STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant-Defendant, Gary Elvers (Elvers), appeals his conviction of three Counts of dealing in a synthetic drug, Class D felonies, Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10 (a)(2),(b)(1)(B) (2012); and one Count of maintaining a common nuisance, a Class D felony, I.”
$100 & a Black Cadillac v. State, 822 N.E.2d 1001 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 8× “Ind.Code § 35-48-4-10 provides, in pertinent part: (a) A person who: th ook (2) possesses, with intent to: te ok ak (C) deliver .”
Espinoza v. State, 859 N.E.2d 375 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “The offense of dealing in marijuana as a class C felony is governed by Ind.Code § 35-48-4-10, which provides: "(a) A person who: .”
Tiplick v. State, 25 N.E.3d 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 15× “By the standard articulated in Brown, the versions of Ind. Code §§ 35-48-4-10 (a) and 11 effective at the time of Tiplick’s alleged offenses were unconstitutionally vague 8 as they related to the term “synthetic drug” 9 as defined *194 by Ind.”
Everroad v. State, 570 N.E.2d 38 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 8× “§ 35-48-4-1(2) (dealing in cocaine); Counts II and III were violations of I.C. § 35-48-4-10(2) (dealing in marijuana or hashish); and Counts IV and V were violations of I.”
Divello v. State, 782 N.E.2d 433 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “NOTES [1] Ind.Code § 35-48-4-10 (1998 & Supp. 2002).”
Esquerdo v. State, 640 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. 1994). · cites it 4× “§ 35-48-4-6, a Class C felony; Possession of Marijuana with the Intent to Deliver, I.C. § 35-48-4-10, a Class D felony; and Possession of Marijuana, I.”
Allen v. State, 787 N.E.2d 473 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Ind.Code § 35-48-4-10. 6 . . Ind.Code § 35-48-4-11.”
Conner v. State, 626 N.E.2d 803 (Ind. 1993). · cites it 4× “[3] Dealing in more than thirty grams of marijuana is a class D felony, Ind. Code Ann. § 35-48-4-10 (b)(1)(B) (West Supp.”
Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547 (Ind. 1999). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 35-48-4-10 (1995 Supp.). 2 . Ind.”
Ladd v. State, 710 N.E.2d 188 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10 . Ladd also appeals his sentence for his conviction of maintaining a common nuisance, a Class D felony.”
Shelton v. State, 602 N.E.2d 1017 (Ind. 1992). · cites it 6× “The statute involved in Sweet , Ind. Code Ann. § 35-48-4-10 (iii), [2] provided for elevation of a drug charge from a class A misdemeanor to a class D felony when the person charged had been previously convicted of an offense involving marijuana or hashish.”
Show all 151 citing cases →
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(1): 1 case
Silva v. State, 410 N.E.2d 1342 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980).
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(2): 1 case
Everroad v. State, 570 N.E.2d 38 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). “§ 35-48-4-1(2) (dealing in cocaine); Counts II and III were violations of I.C. § 35-48-4-10(2) (dealing in marijuana or hashish); and Counts IV and V were violations of I.”
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(2012): 1 case
Byron Tinker & Travis Kelley v. State of Indiana, 53 N.E.3d 498 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(2a)(2)(C): 1 case
Allen v. State, 787 N.E.2d 473 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “Ind.Code § 35-48-4-10. 6 . . Ind.Code § 35-48-4-11.”
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(a): 10 cases
Tiplick v. State, 25 N.E.3d 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “By the standard articulated in Brown, the versions of Ind. Code §§ 35-48-4-10 (a) and 11 effective at the time of Tiplick’s alleged offenses were unconstitutionally vague 8 as they related to the term “synthetic drug” 9 as defined *194 by Ind.”
Graves v. State, 503 N.E.2d 1258 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987).
Bellwether Props., LLC v. Duke Energy Indiana, LLC, 59 N.E.3d 1037 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 360 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996).
Ashfaque v. State, 25 N.E.3d 183 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(a)(1): 4 cases
Lanham v. State, 937 N.E.2d 419 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
Washington v. State, 740 N.E.2d 1241 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
Washington v. State, 740 N.E.2d 1241 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
Christopher Tiplick v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-1312-CR-617 (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2015).
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(a)(2): 12 cases
Everroad v. State, 570 N.E.2d 38 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). “§ 35-48-4-1(2) (dealing in cocaine); Counts II and III were violations of I.C. § 35-48-4-10(2) (dealing in marijuana or hashish); and Counts IV and V were violations of I.”
$100 & a Black Cadillac v. State, 822 N.E.2d 1001 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “Ind.Code § 35-48-4-10 provides, in pertinent part: (a) A person who: th ook (2) possesses, with intent to: te ok ak (C) deliver .”
Taylor v. State, 677 N.E.2d 56 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).
Gary Elvers v. State of Indiana, 22 N.E.3d 824 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant-Defendant, Gary Elvers (Elvers), appeals his conviction of three Counts of dealing in a synthetic drug, Class D felonies, Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10 (a)(2),(b)(1)(B) (2012); and one Count of maintaining a common nuisance, a Class D felony, I.”
Adams v. State, 968 N.E.2d 281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(a)(2)(C): 4 cases
Gary Elvers v. State of Indiana, 22 N.E.3d 824 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant-Defendant, Gary Elvers (Elvers), appeals his conviction of three Counts of dealing in a synthetic drug, Class D felonies, Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10 (a)(2),(b)(1)(B) (2012); and one Count of maintaining a common nuisance, a Class D felony, I.”
$100 & a Black Cadillac v. State, 822 N.E.2d 1001 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “Ind.Code § 35-48-4-10 provides, in pertinent part: (a) A person who: th ook (2) possesses, with intent to: te ok ak (C) deliver .”
Ladd v. State, 710 N.E.2d 188 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10 . Ladd also appeals his sentence for his conviction of maintaining a common nuisance, a Class D felony.”
Harrison v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 876 N.E.2d 814 (Ind. T.C. 2007).
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(a)(2)(C)(d): 1 case
Kyle Scott Dilley v. State of Indiana, 134 N.E.3d 1046 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(a)(2)(c): 1 case
Creekmore v. State, 800 N.E.2d 230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(a)(l): 2 cases
Christopher Tiplick v. State of Indiana, 43 N.E.3d 1259 (Ind. 2015).
Tiplick v. State, 25 N.E.3d 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “By the standard articulated in Brown, the versions of Ind. Code §§ 35-48-4-10 (a) and 11 effective at the time of Tiplick’s alleged offenses were unconstitutionally vague 8 as they related to the term “synthetic drug” 9 as defined *194 by Ind.”
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(a)(l)(A): 1 case
Rotz v. State, 894 N.E.2d 989 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(a)(l)(D): 1 case
Hurst v. Dep't of State Revenue, 721 N.E.2d 370 (Ind. T.C. 1999).
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(b): 4 cases
Kail v. State, 528 N.E.2d 799 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988).
Hendrickson v. State, 690 N.E.2d 765 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).
Tiplick v. State, 25 N.E.3d 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “By the standard articulated in Brown, the versions of Ind. Code §§ 35-48-4-10 (a) and 11 effective at the time of Tiplick’s alleged offenses were unconstitutionally vague 8 as they related to the term “synthetic drug” 9 as defined *194 by Ind.”
Christopher Tiplick v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-1312-CR-617 (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2015).
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(b)(1): 1 case
Leroy Washington v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), No. 49A02-1707-CR-1665 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2017).
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(b)(1)(A): 1 case
State v. Robinson, 863 N.E.2d 894 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(b)(1)(B): 1 case
Samantha Adams v. State of Indiana, No. 49A05-1107-CR-372 (Ind. Ct. App. May 24, 2012).
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(b)(1)(C): 1 case
Lamb v. State, 699 N.E.2d 708 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(b)(2): 3 cases
Espinoza v. State, 859 N.E.2d 375 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “The offense of dealing in marijuana as a class C felony is governed by Ind.Code § 35-48-4-10, which provides: "(a) A person who: .”
Chupp v. State, 830 N.E.2d 119 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
Blalock v. State, 476 N.E.2d 901 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985).
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(b)(2)(B): 2 cases
Conner v. State, 613 N.E.2d 484 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993).
Pridgeon v. State, 569 N.E.2d 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991).
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(b)(2)(B)(i): 1 case
Ware v. State, 782 N.E.2d 478 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(b)(2)(B)(ii): 1 case
Matthew McKinney v. State of Indiana, No. 15A01-1309-CR-399 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2014).
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(b)(l)(B): 2 cases
Conner v. State, 626 N.E.2d 803 (Ind. 1993). “[3] Dealing in more than thirty grams of marijuana is a class D felony, Ind. Code Ann. § 35-48-4-10 (b)(1)(B) (West Supp.”
Howard v. State, 626 N.E.2d 574 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993).
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(b)(l)(B)(ii): 1 case
Gary Elvers v. State of Indiana, 22 N.E.3d 824 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant-Defendant, Gary Elvers (Elvers), appeals his conviction of three Counts of dealing in a synthetic drug, Class D felonies, Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10 (a)(2),(b)(1)(B) (2012); and one Count of maintaining a common nuisance, a Class D felony, I.”
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(c)(2)(A): 1 case
Robert A. Ellington, III v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), No. 84A01-1608-CR-1755 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 22, 2017).
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(d)(2)(A)(i): 1 case
Mark C. Morr v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), No. 57A03-1710-CR-2436 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2018).
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(ii1): 1 case
Hines v. State, 794 N.E.2d 469 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(iii): 2 cases
Sweet v. State, 439 N.E.2d 1144 (Ind. 1982).
Shelton v. State, 602 N.E.2d 1017 (Ind. 1992). “The statute involved in Sweet , Ind. Code Ann. § 35-48-4-10 (iii), [2] provided for elevation of a drug charge from a class A misdemeanor to a class D felony when the person charged had been previously convicted of an offense involving marijuana or hashish.”
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.