IC § 35-41-3 – Defenses Relating to Culpability
IC § 35-41-3-1 – Legal authority
IC § 35-41-3-2 – Use of force to protect person or property
IC § 35-41-3-3 – Use of force relating to arrest or escape
IC § 35-41-3-5 – Intoxication
IC § 35-41-3-6 – Mental disease or defect
IC § 35-41-3-7 – Mistake of fact
IC § 35-41-3-8 – Duress
IC § 35-41-3-9 – Entrapment
IC § 35-41-3-10 – Abandonment
IC § 35-41-3-11 – Mental disease or defect; use of justifiable reasonable force
– “An affirmative defense admits all the elements of the crime but proves circumstances which excuse the defendant from culpability.” Melendez v. State, 511 N.E.2d 454, 457 (Ind. 1987).
– If you think there may be an affirmative defense, make sure to look up the statute to see if the elements of the defense are met.
Self Defense and Defense of Another
Indiana Pattern Jury Instruction
Instruction No. 10.03A.Use of Force to Protect Person.
It is an issue whether the Defendant acted in (self–defense) or (defense of another person).
A person may use reasonable force against another person to protect (himself/herself from what he/she) or (someone else) from what the Defendant reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.
A person is justified in using deadly force, and does not have a duty to retreat, only if he/she reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary (to prevent serious bodily injury to himself/herself or a third person) or (to prevent the commission of a felony).
(However, a person may not use force if:
(he/she is committing a crime that is directly and immediately connected to the (confrontation) (use a descriptive term based on evidence).
(he/she is escaping after the commission of a crime that is directly and immediately connected to the (confrontation) (use a descriptive term based on evidence).)
(he/she provokes a fight with another person with intent to cause bodily injury to that person).
(he/she has willingly entered into a fight with another person or started the fight, unless he withdraws from the fight and communicates to the other person his intent to withdraw and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue the fight).
The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant did not act in self–defense.
“A person may use reasonable force against another person to protect someone else from what the Defendant reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. No person in this State shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting a third person by reasonable means necessary. The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant did not act in defense of another person.” Washington v. State, 997 N.E.2d 342, 345 (Ind. 2013).
– Generally, a defendant can not claim self defense where he is committing a seperate crime at the time of the confrontation and there is an immediate casual connection between the crime and confrontation. Mayes v. State, 744 N.E.2d 390, 394 (ind. 2001).
Patton v. State, 760 N.E.2d 672 (Ind. App. 2002) Court of Appeals – Second District – 1/10/02
– Δ and his brother purchased clothing from a vendor. The clothing was defective. When Δ and his brother asked for a refund, an altercation ensued. The vendor was attacking Δ’s brother. Δ shot the vendor twice in the legs.
– “The following requirements have traditionally been held to be prerequisites in establishing a necessity defense:
(1) the act charged as criminal must have been done to prevent a significant evil;
(2) there must have been no adequate alternative to the commission of the act;
(3) the harm caused by the act must not be disproportionate to the harm avoided;
(4) the accused must entertain a good-faith belief that his act was necessary to prevent greater harm;
(5) such belief must be objectively reasonable under all the circumstances; and
(6) the accused must not have substantially contributed to the creation of the emergency.” Patton at 675.
– “In order to negate a claim of necessity, the State must disprove at least one element of the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The State may refute a claim of the defense of necessity by direct rebuttal, or by relying upon the sufficiency of the evidence in its case-in-chief.” Patton at 676.
– The facts claimed by Δ were sufficient to justify a jury instruction on the defense of necessity.
If you are in need of an Indiana expungement attorney, Indiana criminal defense attorney, or forfeiture attorney, please call me for a free consultation at 317-695-7700. I have personally defended thousands of cases, teach criminal law at the IU School of Law, am a top rated attorney, and have practiced criminal defense my entire career. Additional information about my office is available on the home page and the in the news page.
DISCLAIMER – The information contained on this website is provided for educational and informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice or as an offer to perform legal services on any subject matter. The content of this web site contains general information and may not reflect current legal developments or information. The information is not guaranteed to be correct, complete or current. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, about the accuracy or reliability of the information at this website or at any other website to which it is linked. Recipients of content from this site should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in the site without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the recipient’s state. Nothing herein is intended to create an attorney-client relationship and shall not be construed as legal advice. This is not an offer to represent you, nor is it intended to create an attorney-client relationship.