Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 31-33-22-1 (2026)
Failure to make report
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 1. (a) A person who knowingly fails to make a report required by IC 31-33-5-1 commits a Class B misdemeanor.
(b) A person who knowingly fails to make a report required by IC 31-33-5-2 commits a Class B misdemeanor. This penalty is in addition to the penalty imposed by subsection (a).
(c) A criminal investigation does not affect the victim's right to seek a civil remedy against the person being investigated for a crime under this section.
[Pre-1997 Recodification Citation: 31-6-11-20.]
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.16. Amended by P.L.183-2017, SEC.38; P.L.168-2025, SEC.8.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 2006–2019 · leading case: Christopher Smith v. State of Indiana, 8 N.E.3d 668 (Ind. 2014).
Christopher Smith v. State of Indiana, 8 N.E.3d 668 (Ind. 2014). “3 Ind. Code § 31-33-22-1 (a) (2008). Smith filed a motion to dismiss the charges, claiming the State had inappropriately combined the reporting requirements of two statutes, and also arguing that the reporting statute was void for vagueness.”
Marybeth Lebo v. State of Indiana, 977 N.E.2d 1031 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “” Ind. Code § 31-33-22-1 (emphases added). Based on this language, I believe that it is clear that the legislature intended for only one crime to result under each of the failure to report statutes.”
Edward Gilliland v. State of Indiana, 979 N.E.2d 1049 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “at 15 (quoting Ind. Code §§ 31-33-22-1 and 31-33-5-4). According to Gilliland, “the statute of limitations began to run, at the latest, on October 28, 2008.”
Christopher Smith v. State of Indiana, 982 N.E.2d 348 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “told Smith that she had been raped in the 1 Ind. Code § 31-33-22-1 (2004). 2 Smith also raises an issue regarding whether the statutory provisions which govern the offense are unconstitutionally void for vagueness.”
Paul Gresk, Tr. for the Bankr. Est. of Derek VanWinkle & Stacey VanWinkle on behalf of M v. & A v. their minor Child. v. Cortney Demetris, M.D., 96 N.E.3d 564 (Ind. 2018). “]"); Ind. Code § 31-33-22-1 (a) (2017) ("A person who knowingly fails to make a report required by IC 31-33-5-1 commits a Class B misdemeanor.”
Planned Parenthood of Indiana v. Carter, 854 N.E.2d 853 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Ind.Code § 31-33-22-1. All such reports must be made orally to either the Department of Child Services or the local law enforcement agency, each of which roust inform the other that a report has been made.”
Anonymous Hosp. v. A.K., 920 N.E.2d 704 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Ind. Code § 31-33-22-1 . A person who makes such a report is immune from both civil and criminal liability because of doing so; however, immunity will not attach if the person making the report has acted maliciously or in bad faith.”
Kelli Sprunger v. John A. Egli, M.D., 44 N.E.3d 690 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “…for failing to report. An individual who knowingly fails to report child abuse commits a Class B misdemeanor. Ind.Code § 31-33-22-1. ■”
Paul Gresk, Tr. for the Bankr. Est. of Derek VanWinkle & Stacey VanWinkle on behalf of M v. & A v. their minor Child. v. Cortney Demetris, M.D., 81 N.E.3d 645 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “See Ind. Code § 31-33-22-1 ; see also Smith v.”
F.D. v. Indiana Dep't of Fam. Servs., 973 N.E.2d 1186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Whereas members of the general public may be criminally prosecuted for failing to report suspected child abuse, Ind.Code § 31-33-22-1, no similar incentive is available to compel Child Services to fulfill its statutory duty to notify a child’s parents about the availability of…”
Hubert A. Kraemer v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), No. 19A-CR-122 (Ind. Ct. App. June 12, 2019). “4 I.C. § 31-33-22-1(a). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-122 | June 12, 2019 Page 3 of 7 felonies; one count of maintaining a common nuisance, as a Level 6 felony;5 and one count of visiting a common nuisance, as a Class A misdemeanor.”
Courtney Weikart, Ruth Weikart, & Kevin Weikart v. Whitko Cmty. Sch. Corp. & Town of South Whitley, Indiana, 134 N.E.3d 484 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “I.C. § 31-33-22-1. 2 It does not appear that the media reporting included Courtney’s name, but somehow, her involvement in the situation became publicly known.”
Ind. Code § 31-33-22-1(a): 3 cases
Christopher Smith v. State of Indiana, 8 N.E.3d 668 (Ind. 2014). “3 Ind. Code § 31-33-22-1 (a) (2008). Smith filed a motion to dismiss the charges, claiming the State had inappropriately combined the reporting requirements of two statutes, and also arguing that the reporting statute was void for vagueness.”
Christopher Smith v. State of Indiana, 982 N.E.2d 348 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “told Smith that she had been raped in the 1 Ind. Code § 31-33-22-1 (2004). 2 Smith also raises an issue regarding whether the statutory provisions which govern the offense are unconstitutionally void for vagueness.”
Hubert A. Kraemer v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), No. 19A-CR-122 (Ind. Ct. App. June 12, 2019). “4 I.C. § 31-33-22-1(a). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-122 | June 12, 2019 Page 3 of 7 felonies; one count of maintaining a common nuisance, as a Level 6 felony;5 and one count of visiting a common nuisance, as a Class A misdemeanor.”
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.