Sec. 3. (a) A person who:
(1) knowingly or intentionally:
(A) manufactures;
(B) finances the manufacture of;
(C) delivers; or
(D) finances the delivery of;
a controlled substance or controlled substance analog, pure or
adulterated, classified in schedule IV; or
(2) possesses, with intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled
substance or controlled substance analog, pure or adulterated,
classified in schedule IV;
commits dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance, a Class A
misdemeanor, except as provided in subsections (b) through (f).
(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 or deliver the controlled
substance or controlled substance analog; or
(2) the amount of the drug involved is at least twenty-eight (28)
grams.
(c) The offense is a Level 6 felony if:
(1) the amount of the drug involved is at least one (1) gram but
less than five (5) grams; or
(2) the amount of the drug involved is less than one (1) gram and
an enhancing circumstance applies.
(d) The offense is a Level 5 felony if:
(1) the amount of the drug involved is at least five (5) grams but
less than ten (10) grams; or
(2) the amount of the drug involved is at least one (1) gram but
less than five (5) grams and an enhancing circumstance applies.
(e) The offense is a Level 4 felony if:
(1) the amount of the drug involved is at least ten (10) grams but
less than twenty-eight (28) grams; or
(2) the amount of the drug involved is at least five (5) grams but
less than ten (10) grams and an enhancing circumstance applies.
(f) The offense is a Level 3 felony if:
(1) the amount of the drug involved is at least twenty-eight (28)
grams; or
(2) the amount of the drug involved is at least ten (10) grams but
less than twenty-eight (28) grams and an enhancing circumstance
applies.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.7. Amended by Acts
1977, P.L.340, SEC.98; P.L.296-1987, SEC.7; P.L.165-1990, SEC.5;
P.L.296-1995, SEC.5; P.L.65-1996, SEC.13; P.L.17-2001, SEC.21;
P.L.158-2013, SEC.625; P.L.168-2014, SEC.94; P.L.226-2014(ts),
SEC.9; P.L.44-2016, SEC.5; P.L.80-2019, SEC.24.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
37
cases, 1982–2020 · leading case:
Polk v. State, 683 N.E.2d 567 (Ind. 1997).
Polk v. State, 683 N.E.2d 567 (Ind. 1997).
· cites it 9× “Code § 35-48-4-7(a) with Ind. Code § 35-48-4-3 (a)(2). And dealing in either illegal substance is codified separately from the possession offenses.”
Conwell v. Gray Loon Outdoor Mktg. Grp., Inc., 906 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. 2009).
· cites it 2× “" Ind.Code § 35-48-4-3 (2008). The action that POA argues constitutes conversion amounts to Gray Loon's "destruction" of the paid-for website.”
Simmons v. State, 585 N.E.2d 1341 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 6× “Appellant-Defendant Robert Simmons was charged with two counts of Dealing in a Schedule IV Controlled Substance pursuant to Ind.Code § 35-48-4-3 and two counts of Possession of a Controlled Substance pursuant to Ind.”
Powers v. State, 440 N.E.2d 1096 (Ind. 1982).
· cites it 4× “1979), and dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance, Ind. Code § 35-48-4-3 (Burns Repl. 1979), at the conclusion of a jury trial in Clark Circuit Court on April 29, 1980.”
Ratliff v. State, 770 N.E.2d 807 (Ind. 2002).
· cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 35-48-4-3 (1998). 2 . Id. § 35-48-4-7.”
Harlan Bakeries, Inc. v. Muncy, 835 N.E.2d 1018 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “The Victim's Relief Act, Indiana Code Section 34-24-3-1, permits a person who suffers a pecuniary loss as a result of a violation of I.C. § 35-48-4-3, criminal conversion, to recover treble damages and attorneys' fees.”
Cooper v. State, 900 N.E.2d 64 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “at 69, 74-75; Ind.Code § 35-48-4-3. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court sentenced Cooper to the Howard County Criminal Justice Center for a period of one year, of which 176 days would be executed and the balance suspended.”
Conner v. State, 626 N.E.2d 803 (Ind. 1993).
· cites it 2× “NOTES [1] Dealing in cocaine or a narcotic drug is generally a class B felony (§ 35-48-4-1); dealing in a schedule I, II, or III controlled substance except marijuana, hash oil, or hashish is also generally a class B felony (§ 35-48-4-2); dealing in a schedule IV controlled…”
Bei Bei Shuai v. State, 966 N.E.2d 619 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “§ 35-48-4-2); *634 (D) dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance (I.C. § 35-48-4-3); or (E) dealing in a schedule V controlled substance or (4) knowingly or intentionally kills a fetus that has attained viability; commits murder, a felony.”
Ruse v. Bleeke, 914 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Indiana Code section 35-48-4-3 provides that a person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person commits criminal conversion, a Class A misdemeanor.”
Sam & Mac, Inc. v. Treat, 783 N.E.2d 760 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “" I.C. § 35-48-4-3. The Indiana crime victim's relief act allows a person who has suffered a pecuniary loss as a result of a violation of criminal conversion to bring a civil action to recover the loss.”
Inlow v. Inlow, 797 N.E.2d 810 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “The Complaint charged Anita with Count 1, unjust enrichment; Count II, conversion pursuant to Ind.Code § 35-48-4-3; and Count III, conversion pursuant to IC.”
— Ind. Code § 35-48-4-3(a) — 3 cases
— Ind. Code § 35-48-4-3(a)(1) — 2 cases
Polk v. State, 683 N.E.2d 567 (Ind. 1997).
“Code § 35-48-4-7(a) with Ind. Code § 35-48-4-3 (a)(2). And dealing in either illegal substance is codified separately from the possession offenses.”
— Ind. Code § 35-48-4-3(a)(2) — 1 case
Polk v. State, 683 N.E.2d 567 (Ind. 1997).
“Code § 35-48-4-7(a) with Ind. Code § 35-48-4-3 (a)(2). And dealing in either illegal substance is codified separately from the possession offenses.”
— Ind. Code § 35-48-4-3(a)(l) — 1 case
Polk v. State, 683 N.E.2d 567 (Ind. 1997).
“Code § 35-48-4-7(a) with Ind. Code § 35-48-4-3 (a)(2). And dealing in either illegal substance is codified separately from the possession offenses.”
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.