What are affirmative defenses in Indiana?

What Are Affirmative Defenses in Indiana?

Affirmative defenses are a type of defense where the defendant would argue that they did commit the criminal action, but they are not responsible for the charged crime. The defendant is not required to prove or explain anything. For more on the legal issues discussed here, see our Indiana criminal defense overview and Criminal Recklessness in Indiana guide.

Prosecutor's Burden of Proof

It's the prosecutor's burden to prove that the crime happened and the person on trial committed the crime. In any affirmative defense trial, the prosecutor must show that the affirmative defense is not applicable with three burdens of proof. These are 1) preponderance of the evidence, 2) clear and convincing evidence, and 3) beyond a reasonable doubt.

Affirmative Defenses in Indiana

1.Insanity: A plea of insanity must be raised by filing a formal notice with the court and must be affirmatively pled. The court appoints two doctors to examine the defendant and determine whether the defendant has a mental disease or defect. It must then be determined whether that mental disease or defect prevented the defendant from appreciating the wrongfulness of their actions at the time they occurred. This is not a "get-out-of-jail-free" card — if the defendant is found to have a qualifying mental disease or defect, they will be involuntarily committed to a state mental institution.

2.Self-Defense: In a self-defense plea, the defendant does not deny committing the act — taking a life or injuring another person. Instead, they admit to the act but argue it was justified because they had a reasonable fear that imminent force was about to be used against them or a third party. If you or a third party is about to be the victim of force, you are permitted to repel that attack, but the force used in response must be proportional. For instance, if someone is swinging a stick at you, you can't respond by pulling out a gun and shooting them. If they were swinging a knife at you, however, you would likely be justified in using deadly force.

3.Involuntary Intoxication: This is the first defense on this list that shifts the burden of proof from the prosecutor to the defendant. Indiana law defines intoxication as being under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or other controlled substances to a degree that results in a loss or impairment of thought, action, or motor function. This plea is often raised in DUI cases, though it is difficult to prove, since true involuntary intoxication is rare.

4.Mistake of Fact: Suppose someone hires you to demolish a patio, and partway through the job you discover that the person who hired you doesn't actually own the property. If the true owner presses charges, you could claim mistake of fact — arguing that you reasonably believed the person who hired you had the legal authority to authorize the work.

5.Duress: This affirmative defense is common in drug offenses — for example, when drug mules are threatened with death if they refuse to carry the drugs. It generally amounts to: "I would not have committed this crime if I or my family had not been threatened."

6.Entrapment: This is the most misunderstood affirmative defense. The claim is that the defendant would not have committed the criminal act if not induced by law enforcement to do so. Entrapment does not apply if the defendant was already predisposed to commit the crime — for instance, selling drugs or engaging in prostitution — regardless of law enforcement's involvement.

7.Abandonment: In an affirmative defense of abandonment, the question is whether the defendant voluntarily abandoned the criminal act before it took place. These cases usually involve conspiracy-type offenses that require active planning and intent to commit a crime. Abandonment is not considered voluntary if the defendant only backed out after being confronted with obstacles or difficulties, and it does not include merely postponing the act.

8.Necessity: This common-law affirmative defense rests on the idea that, in certain emergencies, breaking the law is justified. Several elements must be proven: (1) the criminal act was committed in response to an emergency; (2) there was no adequate legal alternative to committing the act; (3) the harm caused by the act was not disproportionate to the harm avoided; (4) the defendant reasonably believed that breaking the law was necessary to prevent the harm, with that belief being objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances; and (5) the defendant did not contribute to creating the emergency in the first place.

9.Battered Spouse Syndrome: This is a relatively new affirmative defense in Indiana that straddles both the self-defense and insanity defenses. Many people who suffer from PTSD — often as a result of spousal abuse — may snap in the heat of the moment. This plea can be framed as a form of temporary insanity, during which the defendant was rendered incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of their actions. To succeed, it must be shown that the force used by the defendant was proportional to the force used against them.

10.Legal Authority: This affirmative defense argues that an act would not be considered a crime because the defendant had the legal authority to perform it. It's often raised in cases involving a parent's discipline of a child, such as spanking or other corporal punishment — an authority parents retain under Indiana law. A parent or guardian has the right to discipline a child, provided the punishment does not leave permanent injury or scarring. Once the defense is raised, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant lacked the legal authority to act.

Call Mo Today

If you are charged with a crime, reach out to Mo to discuss the possibility of any affirmative defenses you may have. Give Mo a call at (347) 889-4944!