Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 6-7-3-1 (2026)

"Controlled substance" defined

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

     Sec. 1. As used in this chapter, "controlled substance" has the meaning set forth in IC 35-48-1.1-7.

As added by P.L.50-1992, SEC.1. Amended by P.L.186-2025, SEC.70.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1995–2011 · leading case: Steven Waters v. Reagan Farr, Comm'r of Revenue for the State of Tennessee, 291 S.W.3d 873 (Tenn. 2009).
Steven Waters v. Reagan Farr, Comm'r of Revenue for the State of Tennessee, 291 S.W.3d 873 (Tenn. 2009). · cites it 3× “520/1-520/26 (2006); Ind. Code §§ 6-7-3-1 to -20 (2007); Iowa Code Ann.”
Bryant v. State, 660 N.E.2d 290 (Ind. 1996). · cites it 4× “NOTES [1] Ind.Code Ann. §§ 6-7-3-1 to 6-7-3-17 (West Supp.”
Whitt v. State, 645 N.E.2d 677 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “[6] I.C. § 6-7-3-1, et seq. The CSET imposes a tax on the delivery, possession, or manufacture of controlled substances in violation of federal or state law.”
State v. Mohler, 694 N.E.2d 1129 (Ind. 1998). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code §§ 6-7-3-1 to-17 (Supp.1992). 4 .”
State v. Sproles, 672 N.E.2d 1353 (Ind. 1996). “Cope §§ 6-7-3-1 to 6-7-3-20 (1993 & Supp. 1996).”
Garwood v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 953 N.E.2d 682 (Ind. T.C. 2011). · cites it 2× “Unlike controlled substance excise tax (CSET) assessments, which are per se jeopardy assessments under Indiana Code § 6-7-3-1 et seq., the general jeopardy assessment statute, Indiana Code § 6-8.”
Anderson v. State, 649 N.E.2d 1060 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “The tax is due when the illegal action occurs, 1.C. § 6-7-3-7, the taxpayer is not required to reveal their identity, and the department of state revenue cannot reveal related information to initiate a prosecution, except for failure to pay.”
Peterson v. State, 689 N.E.2d 1290 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “” Ind.Code §§ 6-7-3-1, -2, -4. Given the double jeopardy ramifications of the CSET assessment against Peterson for delivery of cocaine, the criminal charge of delivery of cocaine was one which, judged on its face, the state could not constitutionally prosecute, and Peterson’s…”
Woods v. State, 654 N.E.2d 1153 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). “Moreover, the Indiana Code section which enhances a dealing in cocaine charge from a B to an A felony specifically provides that "school property" includes Head Start programs.”
Harrison v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 876 N.E.2d 814 (Ind. T.C. 2007). · cites it 2× “Moreover, several provisions of Indiana Code § 6-7-3-1 et seq. indicate that the CSET is not a statutory criminal offense.”
Martin Peterson v. State of Indiana, 694 N.E.2d 722 (Ind. 1998). · cites it 2× “…decided today. SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, SELBY and BOEHM, JJ., concur. 1 . Ind.Code § 35-48-4-11(1) (1988). 2 . Ind.Code §§ 6-7-3-1 to -17 (Supp.1992).”
Jeffrey Hazzard v. State of Indiana, 694 N.E.2d 283 (Ind. 1998). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code §§ 6-7-3-1 to-17 (Supp.1992). 6 .”
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.