Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-33-8-3 (2026)
Repealed
✓ current as of May 2026
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1982, P.L.204, SEC.16; P.L.24-1986, SEC.35; P.L.167-1987, SEC.9; P.L.44-1988, SEC.2; P.L.53-1989, SEC.7; P.L.355-1989(ss), SEC.14; P.L.284-1989, SEC.8. Repealed by P.L.1-1990, SEC.341.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: Dennis Garner v. Gregory S. Kempf & Clerk of Vanderburgh Cnty. (garnishee), 93 N.E.3d 1091 (Ind. 2018).
Dennis Garner v. Gregory S. Kempf & Clerk of Vanderburgh Cnty. (garnishee), 93 N.E.3d 1091 (Ind. 2018). “,” Ind. Code § 35-33-8-3 .2(a)(1), it does not explicitly authorize wholesale garnishment of bail bonds by judgment creditors.”
Coates v. State, 534 N.E.2d 1087 (Ind. 1989). “However, on August 31, 1983, the trial judge sua sponte revoked the defendant’s ten percent bail bond authorized under Ind. Code § 35-33-8-3 (a)(2) and ordered him rearrested subject to the full bail bond requirements of Ind.”
O'laughlin v. Barton, 549 N.E.2d 1040 (Ind. 1990). “However, this attempted correction gives rise to some confusion, as reflected in the briefs of this case, in leading one to believe that a forfeiture could occur only if the defendant had been let to bail pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-33-8-3 (a)(2). If one could engage in such…”
State of Iowa v. Patrick John Letscher, 888 N.W.2d 880 (Iowa 2016). “”); Ind. Code Ann. § 35-33-8-3 .2(a)(1) (West, Westlaw current through 2016 Second Reg.”
Sneed v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1255 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “2d at 1129 (interpreting similarly-worded predecessor statute, former Indiana Code section 35-33-8-3). In reviewing the trial court's exercise of discretion, we look to the same factors as are relevant to setting the amount of bail.”
Loren Hamilton Fry v. State of Indiana, 990 N.E.2d 429 (Ind. 2013). “; see also Ind. Code § 35-33-8-3 .2(a). Or a trial court may release a defendant on his own personal recognizance, unless the state shows evidence of a flight risk or danger to the public and “the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the risk exists.”
State Ex Rel. Williams v. Ryan, 490 N.E.2d 1113 (Ind. 1986). “See Ind. Code § 35-33-8-3 (2). The conditions are: 1) the bond be posted in the name of the defendant; 2) the bond be considered a personal asset of the defendant; and 3) the bond be available for payment of court costs, fine, restitution and necessary attorney fees.”
Teresa L. Holder v. State of Indiana, 119 N.E.3d 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “See Ind. Code § 35-33-8-3 .2(a)(2) ; Wright v.”
N.E. v. L.W., 130 N.E.3d 102 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “" See Ind. Code §§ 35-33-8-3 .2(a)(4), 35-38-1-30, and 35-38-2-2.”
The Bail Proj., Inc. v. Comm'r, Indiana Dep't of Ins., 76 F.4th 569 (7th Cir. 2023). “3d at 266–68; see also Ind. Code §§ 35-33-8-3 .8, 35-33-8- 4(b); Ind.”
Melissa Patterson v. State of Indiana, 979 N.E.2d 1066 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Patterson’s counsel filed a motion requesting certification of the ruling on the motion to dismiss for interlocutory 1 We note that under both cause numbers, the State charged that the trial court had issued the no-contact order pursuant to Ind. Code Ann. § 35-33-8-3 .6 (West,…”
Mickell Biggs v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “The trial court has several options regarding how it chooses to implement bail, and requiring the defendant to execute bail with cash is one of those options.”
— Ind. Code § 35-33-8-3(a)(1) — 1 case
Coates v. State, 534 N.E.2d 1087 (Ind. 1989). “However, on August 31, 1983, the trial judge sua sponte revoked the defendant’s ten percent bail bond authorized under Ind. Code § 35-33-8-3 (a)(2) and ordered him rearrested subject to the full bail bond requirements of Ind.”
— Ind. Code § 35-33-8-3(a)(2) — 1 case
O'laughlin v. Barton, 549 N.E.2d 1040 (Ind. 1990). “However, this attempted correction gives rise to some confusion, as reflected in the briefs of this case, in leading one to believe that a forfeiture could occur only if the defendant had been let to bail pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-33-8-3 (a)(2). If one could engage in such…”
— Ind. Code § 35-33-8-3(a)(l) — 1 case
O'laughlin v. Barton, 549 N.E.2d 1040 (Ind. 1990). “However, this attempted correction gives rise to some confusion, as reflected in the briefs of this case, in leading one to believe that a forfeiture could occur only if the defendant had been let to bail pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-33-8-3 (a)(2). If one could engage in such…”
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.