Sec. 16. (a) For an offense under this chapter that
requires proof of:
(1) delivery of cocaine, a narcotic drug, methamphetamine, or a
controlled substance;
(2) financing the delivery of cocaine, a narcotic drug,
methamphetamine, or a controlled substance; or
(3) possession of cocaine, a narcotic drug, methamphetamine, or
a controlled substance;
within five hundred (500) feet of school property or a public park while
a person less than eighteen (18) years of age was reasonably expected
to be present, the person charged may assert the defense in subsection
(b) or (c).
(b) It is a defense for a person charged under this chapter with an
offense that contains an element listed in subsection (a) that:
(1) a person was briefly in, on, or within five hundred (500) feet
of school property or a public park while a person less than
eighteen (18) years of age was reasonably expected to be present;
and
(2) no person under eighteen (18) years of age at least three (3)
years junior to the person was in, on, or within five hundred (500)
feet of the school property or public park at the time of the
offense.
(c) It is a defense for a person charged under this chapter with an
offense that contains an element listed in subsection (a) that a person
was in, on, or within five hundred (500) feet of school property or a
public park:
(1) at the request or suggestion of a law enforcement officer or an
agent of a law enforcement officer; and
(2) while a person less than eighteen (18) years of age was
reasonably expected to be present.
(d) The defense under this section applies only to the element of the
offense that requires proof that the delivery, financing of the delivery,
or possession of cocaine, a narcotic drug, methamphetamine, or a
controlled substance occurred in, on, or within five hundred (500) feet
of school property or a public park while a person less than eighteen
(18) years of age was reasonably expected to be present.
As added by P.L.17-2001, SEC.29. Amended by P.L.158-2013,
SEC.644.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
47
cases, 2005–2020 · leading case:
Stringer v. State, 853 N.E.2d 543 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
Stringer v. State, 853 N.E.2d 543 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 22× “y find the following two issues dispositive: (1) Whether the trial court properly denied Stringer’s Motion in Limine and admitted evidence that upon being apprehended, Stringer possessed a gun and admitted to police officers that he had fired the gun shortly before his arrest;…”
Harrison v. State, 901 N.E.2d 635 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 16× “Ind. Code § 35-48-4-16 (b). Here, Harrison argues that the evidence placed in issue both the brief duration of his presence within 1000 feet of University Park and the absence of any persons under the age of eighteen within 1000 feet of the park at the time of the offenses.”
Abbott v. State, 961 N.E.2d 1016 (Ind. 2012).
· cites it 10× “" *1018 I.C. § 35-48-4-16(c). This is not an affirmative defense, but rather a mitigating factor that reduces culpability, "and therefore the defendant does not have the burden of proof but `only the burden of placing the issue in question where the State's evidence has not done…”
Griffin v. State, 905 N.E.2d 521 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 46× “Griffin pled a defense pursuant to Ind.Code § 35-48-4-16 that he was "only briefly present near the school property and that no children were present.”
Griffin v. State, 925 N.E.2d 344 (Ind. 2010).
· cites it 14× “Indiana Code § 35-48-4-16(b). We granted transfer in this case and in Gallagher v.”
Polk v. State, 822 N.E.2d 239 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 10× “17-2001 § 29, effective July 1, 2001, codified as Ind.Code § 35-48-4-16, provided that this enhancement did not apply in two circumstances.”
Covey v. State, 929 N.E.2d 813 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 12× “" The defense in I.C. § 35-48-4-16(b) is not an affirmative defense, but rather mitigating factors that reduce culpability, "and therefore the defendant does not have the burden of proof but 'only the burden of placing the issue in question where the State's evidence has not…”
Gallagher v. State, 925 N.E.2d 350 (Ind. 2010).
· cites it 6× “Ind.Code § 35-48-4-16. Once the defendant raises either of these two defenses and supporting evidence is presented, the burden passes to the State to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt at least one element of the defense.”
Manigault v. State, 881 N.E.2d 679 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “Specifically, Manigault argues that the defenses listed under Indiana Code section 35-48-4-16 are “unavailable for a defendant in Marion County.”
Whatley v. State, 928 N.E.2d 202 (Ind. 2010).
· cites it 4× “(B) in, on, or within one thousand (1,000) feet of: (i) school property; (ii) a public park; (iii) a family housing complex; or (iv) a youth program center; and (3) a Class A felony if the person possesses the cocaine or narcotic drug in an amount (pure or adulterated) weighing…”
— Ind. Code § 35-48-4-16(a) — 2 cases
Stringer v. State, 853 N.E.2d 543 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
“y find the following two issues dispositive: (1) Whether the trial court properly denied Stringer’s Motion in Limine and admitted evidence that upon being apprehended, Stringer possessed a gun and admitted to police officers that he had fired the gun shortly before his arrest;…”
— Ind. Code § 35-48-4-16(a)(l) — 1 case
Stringer v. State, 853 N.E.2d 543 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
“y find the following two issues dispositive: (1) Whether the trial court properly denied Stringer’s Motion in Limine and admitted evidence that upon being apprehended, Stringer possessed a gun and admitted to police officers that he had fired the gun shortly before his arrest;…”
— Ind. Code § 35-48-4-16(b) — 24 cases
Harrison v. State, 901 N.E.2d 635 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
“Ind. Code § 35-48-4-16 (b). Here, Harrison argues that the evidence placed in issue both the brief duration of his presence within 1000 feet of University Park and the absence of any persons under the age of eighteen within 1000 feet of the park at the time of the offenses.”
Griffin v. State, 925 N.E.2d 344 (Ind. 2010).
“Indiana Code § 35-48-4-16(b). We granted transfer in this case and in Gallagher v.”
Covey v. State, 929 N.E.2d 813 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
“" The defense in I.C. § 35-48-4-16(b) is not an affirmative defense, but rather mitigating factors that reduce culpability, "and therefore the defendant does not have the burden of proof but 'only the burden of placing the issue in question where the State's evidence has not…”
Griffin v. State, 905 N.E.2d 521 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
“Griffin pled a defense pursuant to Ind.Code § 35-48-4-16 that he was "only briefly present near the school property and that no children were present.”
— Ind. Code § 35-48-4-16(b)(1) — 4 cases
Stringer v. State, 853 N.E.2d 543 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
“y find the following two issues dispositive: (1) Whether the trial court properly denied Stringer’s Motion in Limine and admitted evidence that upon being apprehended, Stringer possessed a gun and admitted to police officers that he had fired the gun shortly before his arrest;…”
Griffin v. State, 905 N.E.2d 521 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
“Griffin pled a defense pursuant to Ind.Code § 35-48-4-16 that he was "only briefly present near the school property and that no children were present.”
— Ind. Code § 35-48-4-16(b)(2) — 2 cases
Griffin v. State, 925 N.E.2d 344 (Ind. 2010).
“Indiana Code § 35-48-4-16(b). We granted transfer in this case and in Gallagher v.”
— Ind. Code § 35-48-4-16(c) — 11 cases
Abbott v. State, 961 N.E.2d 1016 (Ind. 2012).
“" *1018 I.C. § 35-48-4-16(c). This is not an affirmative defense, but rather a mitigating factor that reduces culpability, "and therefore the defendant does not have the burden of proof but `only the burden of placing the issue in question where the State's evidence has not done…”
Gallagher v. State, 925 N.E.2d 350 (Ind. 2010).
“Ind.Code § 35-48-4-16. Once the defendant raises either of these two defenses and supporting evidence is presented, the burden passes to the State to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt at least one element of the defense.”
— Ind. Code § 35-48-4-16(d) — 2 cases
Griffin v. State, 925 N.E.2d 344 (Ind. 2010).
“Indiana Code § 35-48-4-16(b). We granted transfer in this case and in Gallagher v.”
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.