IC 35-41-3
Chapter 3. Defenses Relating to Culpability
IC 35-41-3-1 Legal authority
Sec. 1. A person is justified in engaging in conduct otherwise
prohibited if he has legal authority to do so. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.7.
IC 35-41-3-2 Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against
another person to protect the person or a third person from what the
person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.
However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to
prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the
commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be
placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the
person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force,
against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to
prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on
the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an
occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable
force against another person if the person reasonably believes that
the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other
person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully
in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the
person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property
the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including
deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to
retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to
prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack,
or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an
aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is
considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not
justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission
of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with
intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or
is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the
encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do
so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to
continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in
using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a
crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to
cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person
withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other
person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or
otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an
aircraft in flight. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1;
P.L.189-2006, SEC.1.
IC 35-41-3-3 Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is
justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an
arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person
committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless
that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable
force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to
effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly
force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is
necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has
probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily
injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom
the deadly force is to be used.
(c) A law enforcement officer making an arrest under an invalid
warrant is justified in using force as if the warrant was valid, unless
the officer knows that the warrant is invalid.
(d) A law enforcement officer who has an arrested person in
custody is justified in using the same force to prevent the escape of
the arrested person from custody that the officer would be justified
in using if the officer was arresting that person. However, an officer
is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary
to prevent the escape from custody of a person who the officer
has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily
injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom
the deadly force is to be used.
(e) A guard or other official in a penal facility or a law
enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force, including
deadly force, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the
force is necessary to prevent the escape of a person who is detained
in the penal facility.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement
officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same
right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert
self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.9; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.2; P.L.245-1993, SEC.1.
IC 35-41-3-4
Repealed
(Repealed by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.148.)
IC 35-41-3-5 Intoxication
Sec. 5. It is a defense that the person who engaged in the
prohibited conduct did so while he was intoxicated, only if the
intoxication resulted from the introduction of a substance into his
body:
(1) without his consent; or
(2) when he did not know that the substance might cause
intoxication. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.10; Acts 1980, P.L.205, SEC.1; P.L.210-1997, SEC.4.
IC 35-41-3-6 Mental disease or defect
Sec. 6. (a) A person is not responsible for having engaged in
prohibited conduct if, as a result of mental disease or defect, he was
unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of
the offense.
(b) As used in this section, "mental disease or defect" means a
severely abnormal mental condition that grossly and demonstrably
impairs a person's perception, but the term does not include an
abnormality manifested only by repeated unlawful or antisocial
conduct. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.11; P.L.184-1984, SEC.1.
IC 35-41-3-7 Mistake of fact
Sec. 7. It is a defense that the person who engaged in the
prohibited conduct was reasonably mistaken about a matter of fact,
if the mistake negates the culpability required for commission of the
offense. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.12.
IC 35-41-3-8 Duress
Sec. 8. (a) It is a defense that the person who engaged in the
prohibited conduct was compelled to do so by threat of imminent
serious bodily injury to himself or another person. With respect to
offenses other than felonies, it is a defense that the person who
engaged in the prohibited conduct was compelled to do so by force
or threat of force. Compulsion under this section exists only if the
force, threat, or circumstances are such as would render a person of
reasonable firmness incapable of resisting the pressure.
(b) This section does not apply to a person who:
(1) recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally placed himself in a
situation in which it was foreseeable that he would be subjected
to duress; or
(2) committed an offense against the person as defined in
IC 35-42. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.13.
IC 35-41-3-9 Entrapment
Sec. 9. (a) It is a defense that:
(1) the prohibited conduct of the person was the product of a
law enforcement officer, or his agent, using persuasion or other
means likely to cause the person to engage in the conduct; and
(2) the person was not predisposed to commit the offense.
(b) Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit
the offense does not constitute entrapment. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.14.
IC 35-41-3-10 Abandonment
Sec. 10. With respect to a charge under IC 35-41-2-4,
IC 35-41-5-1, or IC 35-41-5-2, it is a defense that the person who
engaged in the prohibited conduct voluntarily abandoned his effort
to commit the underlying crime and voluntarily prevented its
commission. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.15.
IC 35-41-3-11 Mental disease or defect; use of justifiable reasonable force
Sec. 11. (a) As used in this section, "defendant" refers to an
individual charged with any crime involving the use of force against
a person.
(b) This section applies under the following circumstances when
the defendant in a prosecution raises the issue that the defendant was
at the time of the alleged crime suffering from the effects of battery
as a result of the past course of conduct of the individual who is the
victim of the alleged crime:
(1) The defendant raises the issue that the defendant was not
responsible as a result of mental disease or defect under section
6 of this chapter, rendering the defendant unable to appreciate
the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the crime.
(2) The defendant claims to have used justifiable reasonable
force under section 2 of this chapter. The defendant has the
burden of going forward to produce evidence from which a trier
of fact could find support for the reasonableness of the
defendant's belief in the imminence of the use of unlawful force
or, when deadly force is employed, the imminence of serious
bodily injury to the defendant or a third person or the
commission of a forcible felony.
(c) If a defendant proposes to claim the use of justifiable
reasonable force under subsection (b)(2), the defendant must file a
written motion of that intent with the trial court not later than:
(1) twenty (20) days if the defendant is charged with a felony;
or
(2) ten (10) days if the defendant is charged only with one (1)
or more misdemeanors;
before the omnibus date. However, in the interest of justice and upon
a showing of good cause, the court may permit the filing to be made
at any time before the commencement of the trial.
(d) The introduction of any expert testimony under this section
shall be in accordance with the Indiana Rules of Evidence. As added by P.L.210-1997, SEC.5.
IC 35-41-3
Chapter 3. Defenses Relating to Culpability
IC 35-41-3-1 Legal authority
Sec. 1. A person is justified in engaging in conduct otherwise
prohibited if he has legal authority to do so. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.7.
IC 35-41-3-2 Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against
another person to protect the person or a third person from what the
person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.
However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to
prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the
commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be
placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the
person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force,
against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to
prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on
the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an
occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable
force against another person if the person reasonably believes that
the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other
person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully
in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the
person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property
the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including
deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to
retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to
prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack,
or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an
aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is
considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not
justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission
of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with
intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or
is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the
encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do
so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to
continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in
using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a
crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to
cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person
withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other
person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or
otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an
aircraft in flight. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1;
P.L.189-2006, SEC.1.
IC 35-41-3-3 Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is
justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an
arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person
committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless
that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable
force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to
effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly
force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is
necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has
probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily
injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom
the deadly force is to be used.
(c) A law enforcement officer making an arrest under an invalid
warrant is justified in using force as if the warrant was valid, unless
the officer knows that the warrant is invalid.
(d) A law enforcement officer who has an arrested person in
custody is justified in using the same force to prevent the escape of
the arrested person from custody that the officer would be justified
in using if the officer was arresting that person. However, an officer
is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary
to prevent the escape from custody of a person who the officer
has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily
injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom
the deadly force is to be used.
(e) A guard or other official in a penal facility or a law
enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force, including
deadly force, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the
force is necessary to prevent the escape of a person who is detained
in the penal facility.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement
officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same
right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert
self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.9; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.2; P.L.245-1993, SEC.1.
IC 35-41-3-4
Repealed
(Repealed by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.148.)
IC 35-41-3-5 Intoxication
Sec. 5. It is a defense that the person who engaged in the
prohibited conduct did so while he was intoxicated, only if the
intoxication resulted from the introduction of a substance into his
body:
(1) without his consent; or
(2) when he did not know that the substance might cause
intoxication. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.10; Acts 1980, P.L.205, SEC.1; P.L.210-1997, SEC.4.
IC 35-41-3-6 Mental disease or defect
Sec. 6. (a) A person is not responsible for having engaged in
prohibited conduct if, as a result of mental disease or defect, he was
unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of
the offense.
(b) As used in this section, "mental disease or defect" means a
severely abnormal mental condition that grossly and demonstrably
impairs a person's perception, but the term does not include an
abnormality manifested only by repeated unlawful or antisocial
conduct. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.11; P.L.184-1984, SEC.1.
IC 35-41-3-7 Mistake of fact
Sec. 7. It is a defense that the person who engaged in the
prohibited conduct was reasonably mistaken about a matter of fact,
if the mistake negates the culpability required for commission of the
offense. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.12.
IC 35-41-3-8 Duress
Sec. 8. (a) It is a defense that the person who engaged in the
prohibited conduct was compelled to do so by threat of imminent
serious bodily injury to himself or another person. With respect to
offenses other than felonies, it is a defense that the person who
engaged in the prohibited conduct was compelled to do so by force
or threat of force. Compulsion under this section exists only if the
force, threat, or circumstances are such as would render a person of
reasonable firmness incapable of resisting the pressure.
(b) This section does not apply to a person who:
(1) recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally placed himself in a
situation in which it was foreseeable that he would be subjected
to duress; or
(2) committed an offense against the person as defined in
IC 35-42. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.13.
IC 35-41-3-9 Entrapment
Sec. 9. (a) It is a defense that:
(1) the prohibited conduct of the person was the product of a
law enforcement officer, or his agent, using persuasion or other
means likely to cause the person to engage in the conduct; and
(2) the person was not predisposed to commit the offense.
(b) Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit
the offense does not constitute entrapment. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.14.
IC 35-41-3-10 Abandonment
Sec. 10. With respect to a charge under IC 35-41-2-4,
IC 35-41-5-1, or IC 35-41-5-2, it is a defense that the person who
engaged in the prohibited conduct voluntarily abandoned his effort
to commit the underlying crime and voluntarily prevented its
commission. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.15.
IC 35-41-3-11 Mental disease or defect; use of justifiable reasonable force
Sec. 11. (a) As used in this section, "defendant" refers to an
individual charged with any crime involving the use of force against
a person.
(b) This section applies under the following circumstances when
the defendant in a prosecution raises the issue that the defendant was
at the time of the alleged crime suffering from the effects of battery
as a result of the past course of conduct of the individual who is the
victim of the alleged crime:
(1) The defendant raises the issue that the defendant was not
responsible as a result of mental disease or defect under section
6 of this chapter, rendering the defendant unable to appreciate
the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the crime.
(2) The defendant claims to have used justifiable reasonable
force under section 2 of this chapter. The defendant has the
burden of going forward to produce evidence from which a trier
of fact could find support for the reasonableness of the
defendant's belief in the imminence of the use of unlawful force
or, when deadly force is employed, the imminence of serious
bodily injury to the defendant or a third person or the
commission of a forcible felony.
(c) If a defendant proposes to claim the use of justifiable
reasonable force under subsection (b)(2), the defendant must file a
written motion of that intent with the trial court not later than:
(1) twenty (20) days if the defendant is charged with a felony;
or
(2) ten (10) days if the defendant is charged only with one (1)
or more misdemeanors;
before the omnibus date. However, in the interest of justice and upon
a showing of good cause, the court may permit the filing to be made
at any time before the commencement of the trial.
(d) The introduction of any expert testimony under this section
shall be in accordance with the Indiana Rules of Evidence. As added by P.L.210-1997, SEC.5.
IC 35-41-3
Chapter 3. Defenses Relating to Culpability
IC 35-41-3-1 Legal authority
Sec. 1. A person is justified in engaging in conduct otherwise
prohibited if he has legal authority to do so. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.7.
IC 35-41-3-2 Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against
another person to protect the person or a third person from what the
person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.
However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to
prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the
commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be
placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the
person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force,
against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to
prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on
the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an
occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable
force against another person if the person reasonably believes that
the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other
person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully
in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the
person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property
the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including
deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to
retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to
prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack,
or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an
aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is
considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not
justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission
of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with
intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or
is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the
encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do
so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to
continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in
using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a
crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to
cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person
withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other
person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or
otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an
aircraft in flight. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1;
P.L.189-2006, SEC.1.
IC 35-41-3-3 Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is
justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an
arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person
committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless
that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable
force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to
effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly
force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is
necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has
probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily
injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom
the deadly force is to be used.
(c) A law enforcement officer making an arrest under an invalid
warrant is justified in using force as if the warrant was valid, unless
the officer knows that the warrant is invalid.
(d) A law enforcement officer who has an arrested person in
custody is justified in using the same force to prevent the escape of
the arrested person from custody that the officer would be justified
in using if the officer was arresting that person. However, an officer
is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary
to prevent the escape from custody of a person who the officer
has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily
injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom
the deadly force is to be used.
(e) A guard or other official in a penal facility or a law
enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force, including
deadly force, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the
force is necessary to prevent the escape of a person who is detained
in the penal facility.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement
officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same
right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert
self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.9; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.2; P.L.245-1993, SEC.1.
IC 35-41-3-4
Repealed
(Repealed by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.148.)
IC 35-41-3-5 Intoxication
Sec. 5. It is a defense that the person who engaged in the
prohibited conduct did so while he was intoxicated, only if the
intoxication resulted from the introduction of a substance into his
body:
(1) without his consent; or
(2) when he did not know that the substance might cause
intoxication. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.10; Acts 1980, P.L.205, SEC.1; P.L.210-1997, SEC.4.
IC 35-41-3-6 Mental disease or defect
Sec. 6. (a) A person is not responsible for having engaged in
prohibited conduct if, as a result of mental disease or defect, he was
unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of
the offense.
(b) As used in this section, "mental disease or defect" means a
severely abnormal mental condition that grossly and demonstrably
impairs a person's perception, but the term does not include an
abnormality manifested only by repeated unlawful or antisocial
conduct. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.11; P.L.184-1984, SEC.1.
IC 35-41-3-7 Mistake of fact
Sec. 7. It is a defense that the person who engaged in the
prohibited conduct was reasonably mistaken about a matter of fact,
if the mistake negates the culpability required for commission of the
offense. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.12.
IC 35-41-3-8 Duress
Sec. 8. (a) It is a defense that the person who engaged in the
prohibited conduct was compelled to do so by threat of imminent
serious bodily injury to himself or another person. With respect to
offenses other than felonies, it is a defense that the person who
engaged in the prohibited conduct was compelled to do so by force
or threat of force. Compulsion under this section exists only if the
force, threat, or circumstances are such as would render a person of
reasonable firmness incapable of resisting the pressure.
(b) This section does not apply to a person who:
(1) recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally placed himself in a
situation in which it was foreseeable that he would be subjected
to duress; or
(2) committed an offense against the person as defined in
IC 35-42. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.13.
IC 35-41-3-9 Entrapment
Sec. 9. (a) It is a defense that:
(1) the prohibited conduct of the person was the product of a
law enforcement officer, or his agent, using persuasion or other
means likely to cause the person to engage in the conduct; and
(2) the person was not predisposed to commit the offense.
(b) Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit
the offense does not constitute entrapment. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.14.
IC 35-41-3-10 Abandonment
Sec. 10. With respect to a charge under IC 35-41-2-4,
IC 35-41-5-1, or IC 35-41-5-2, it is a defense that the person who
engaged in the prohibited conduct voluntarily abandoned his effort
to commit the underlying crime and voluntarily prevented its
commission. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.15.
IC 35-41-3-11 Mental disease or defect; use of justifiable reasonable force
Sec. 11. (a) As used in this section, "defendant" refers to an
individual charged with any crime involving the use of force against
a person.
(b) This section applies under the following circumstances when
the defendant in a prosecution raises the issue that the defendant was
at the time of the alleged crime suffering from the effects of battery
as a result of the past course of conduct of the individual who is the
victim of the alleged crime:
(1) The defendant raises the issue that the defendant was not
responsible as a result of mental disease or defect under section
6 of this chapter, rendering the defendant unable to appreciate
the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the crime.
(2) The defendant claims to have used justifiable reasonable
force under section 2 of this chapter. The defendant has the
burden of going forward to produce evidence from which a trier
of fact could find support for the reasonableness of the
defendant's belief in the imminence of the use of unlawful force
or, when deadly force is employed, the imminence of serious
bodily injury to the defendant or a third person or the
commission of a forcible felony.
(c) If a defendant proposes to claim the use of justifiable
reasonable force under subsection (b)(2), the defendant must file a
written motion of that intent with the trial court not later than:
(1) twenty (20) days if the defendant is charged with a felony;
or
(2) ten (10) days if the defendant is charged only with one (1)
or more misdemeanors;
before the omnibus date. However, in the interest of justice and upon
a showing of good cause, the court may permit the filing to be made
at any time before the commencement of the trial.
(d) The introduction of any expert testimony under this section
shall be in accordance with the Indiana Rules of Evidence. As added by P.L.210-1997, SEC.5.
