Sec. 16. (a) This section does not apply to:
(1) a pregnant woman who terminates or causes the termination
of her own pregnancy; or
(2) an abortion performed in compliance with IC 16-34.
(b) The state may seek, on a page separate from the rest of the
charging instrument, to have a person who allegedly committed or
attempted to commit a felony sentenced to an additional fixed term of
imprisonment if the state can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the
person, while committing or attempting to commit the felony, caused
the termination of a human pregnancy.
(c) If the person is convicted of the felony in a jury trial, the jury
shall reconvene to hear evidence in the enhancement hearing. If the
trial was to the court, or the judgment was entered on a guilty plea, the
court alone shall hear evidence in the enhancement hearing.
(d) If the jury (if the hearing is by jury) or the court (if the hearing
is to the court alone) finds that the state has proved beyond a
reasonable doubt that the person, while committing or attempting to
commit a felony, caused the termination of a human pregnancy, the
court shall sentence the person to an additional fixed term of
imprisonment of not less than six (6) or more than twenty (20) years.
(e) A sentence imposed under this section runs consecutively to the
underlying sentence.
(f) For purposes of this section, prosecution of the felony and the
enhancement of the penalty for that crime does not require proof that:
(1) the person committing or attempting to commit the felony had
knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim was
pregnant; or
(2) the defendant intended to cause the termination of a human
pregnancy.
As added by P.L.40-2009, SEC.2. Amended by P.L.203-2018,
SEC.6.
Notes of Decisions
Tyler A. White v. State of Indiana, 978 N.E.2d 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 10× “Whether Indiana’s feticide enhancement statute, Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-16, is unconstitutional. 3.”
Purvi Patel v. State of Indiana, 60 N.E.3d 1041 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “” Ind.Code § 35-50-2-16(a). "[Enhancement of the penalty for that crime does not require proof that: (1) the person committing or attempting to commit the murder had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim was pregnant; or (2) the defendant intended to cause the…”
Kendrick v. State, 947 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “In 2009, our legislature resolved double jeopardy problems like the one presented in this case by adding Ind.Code Ann. § 35-50-2-16 (West, Westlaw through 2011 Pub.”
Anthony D. Goffinet v. State of Indiana, No. 82A01-1401-CR-31 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2014).
· cites it 2× “3 I.C. § 35-50-2-16 (West, Westlaw current with all 2014 Public Laws of the 2014 2nd Regular Session & 2 Regular Technical Session of the 118th General Assembly).”
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-16(a): 1 case
Purvi Patel v. State of Indiana, 60 N.E.3d 1041 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
“” Ind.Code § 35-50-2-16(a). "[Enhancement of the penalty for that crime does not require proof that: (1) the person committing or attempting to commit the murder had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim was pregnant; or (2) the defendant intended to cause the…”
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-16(d): 1 case
Purvi Patel v. State of Indiana, 60 N.E.3d 1041 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
“” Ind.Code § 35-50-2-16(a). "[Enhancement of the penalty for that crime does not require proof that: (1) the person committing or attempting to commit the murder had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim was pregnant; or (2) the defendant intended to cause the…”
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.