Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 34-46-3-1 (2026)
Persons not required to testify
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 1. Except as otherwise provided by statute, the following persons shall not be required to testify regarding the following communications:
(1) Attorneys, as to confidential communications made to them in the course of their professional business, and as to advice given in such cases.
(2) Physicians, as to matters communicated to them by patients, in the course of their professional business, or advice given in such cases.
(3) Clergymen, as to the following confessions, admissions, or confidential communications:
(A) Confessions or admissions made to a clergyman in the course of discipline enjoined by the clergyman's church.
(B) A confidential communication made to a clergyman in the clergyman's professional character as a spiritual adviser or counselor.
(4) Husband and wife, as to communications made to each other.
[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-1-14-5 part.]
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.42.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: William Groth v. Mike Pence, as Governor of the State of Indiana, 67 N.E.3d 1104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
William Groth v. Mike Pence, as Governor of the State of Indiana, 67 N.E.3d 1104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “Additionally, under Ind. Code § 34-46-3-1 , the records may have been excluded because they include attorney-client communication.”
Glover v. State, 836 N.E.2d 414 (Ind. 2005). “The marital privilege is a subsection within the "Privileges of Attorneys, Physicians, Clergymen, and Spouses" statute, codified at Indiana Code section 34-46-3-1. It provides: Except as otherwise provided by statute, the following persons shall not be required to testify…”
Dixson v. State, 865 N.E.2d 704 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “In Indiana this marital privilege is now codified at Indiana Code § 34-46-3-1 (Burns Code Ed. Repl.”
In Re the Commitment of J.B., 766 N.E.2d 795 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “Cyran's observations were privileged under the doctor patient relationship codified in Indiana Code section 34-46-3-1. However, J.B.'s counsel thought it "would be appropriate" if Dr.”
Wesco Distrib., Inc. v. Arcelormittal Indiana Harbour Llc. & Espu, Inc., 23 N.E.3d 682 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “The attorney-client privilege arises out of the provisions of Indiana Code section 34-46-3-1 and “protects against judicially compelled disclosure of confidential information regardless of whether the information is to be disclosed by way of testimony or by court-ordered…”
Bartlett v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 206 F.R.D. 623 (S.D. Ind. 2002). “The source of the attorney-client privilege in Indiana is found in Indiana Code § 34-46-3-1 which provides in pertinent part: Except as otherwise provided by statute, the following persons shall not be required to testify regarding the following communications: (1) Attorneys, as…”
TP Orthodontics, Inc. v. Kesling, 15 N.E.3d 985 (Ind. 2014). “See also Ind.Code § 34-46-3-1(1) (2008) (attorneys not required to testify “as to confidential communications made to them in the course of their professional business, and as to advice given in such cases”).”
Brown v. Katz, 868 N.E.2d 1159 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Attorney-Client and Workr-Product Privileges The source of the attorney-client privilege is found in Indiana Code section 34-46-3-1, which provides: “Except as otherwise provided by statute, the follow *1166 ing persons shall not be required to testify regarding the following…”
Andreatta v. Hunley, 714 N.E.2d 1154 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “Ind.Code § 34-46-3-1(2) provides that physicians shall not be required to testify regarding matters communicated to them by their patients in the course of their professional business.”
Fowler v. State, 829 N.E.2d 459 (Ind. 2005). “§ 34-46-3-1(4). However, Indiana long ago abolished the rule of absolute spousal incompetence in favor of a narrow privilege encompassing only confidential communications gained by reason of the marital relationship.”
Purdue Univ. v. Michael A. Wartell, 5 N.E.3d 797 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “I.C. § 34-46-3-1 provides a statutory privilege regarding attorney and client communications.”
State v. Pelley, 828 N.E.2d 915 (Ind. 2005). “§ 34-46-3-1 without substantial change). 3 .”
— Ind. Code § 34-46-3-1(1) — 2 cases
TP Orthodontics, Inc. v. Kesling, 15 N.E.3d 985 (Ind. 2014). “See also Ind.Code § 34-46-3-1(1) (2008) (attorneys not required to testify “as to confidential communications made to them in the course of their professional business, and as to advice given in such cases”).”
Skinner v. State, 920 N.E.2d 263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
— Ind. Code § 34-46-3-1(2) — 3 cases
Andreatta v. Hunley, 714 N.E.2d 1154 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “Ind.Code § 34-46-3-1(2) provides that physicians shall not be required to testify regarding matters communicated to them by their patients in the course of their professional business.”
J.B. v. E.B., 935 N.E.2d 296 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
Jb v. Eb, 935 N.E.2d 296 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
— Ind. Code § 34-46-3-1(3) — 2 cases
Eric Joya v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
Patrick M. Elliott v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).
— Ind. Code § 34-46-3-1(4) — 4 cases
Glover v. State, 836 N.E.2d 414 (Ind. 2005). “The marital privilege is a subsection within the "Privileges of Attorneys, Physicians, Clergymen, and Spouses" statute, codified at Indiana Code section 34-46-3-1. It provides: Except as otherwise provided by statute, the following persons shall not be required to testify…”
Fowler v. State, 829 N.E.2d 459 (Ind. 2005). “§ 34-46-3-1(4). However, Indiana long ago abolished the rule of absolute spousal incompetence in favor of a narrow privilege encompassing only confidential communications gained by reason of the marital relationship.”
Glover v. State, 816 N.E.2d 1197 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
Patrick M. Elliott v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).
— Ind. Code § 34-46-3-1(8) — 1 case
Shanabarger v. State, 798 N.E.2d 210 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
— Ind. Code § 34-46-3-1(A) — 1 case
Patrick M. Elliott v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).
— Ind. Code § 34-46-3-1(a) — 1 case
Kimberly J. Brook v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2023).
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.