Sec. 2. (a) The indictment or information shall be in
writing and allege the commission of an offense by:
(1) stating the title of the action and the name of the court in
which the indictment or information is filed;
(2) stating the name of the offense in the words of the statute or
any other words conveying the same meaning;
(3) citing the statutory provision alleged to have been violated,
except that any failure to include such a citation or any error in
such a citation does not constitute grounds for reversal of a
conviction where the defendant was not otherwise misled as to the
nature of the charges against the defendant;
(4) setting forth the nature and elements of the offense charged in
plain and concise language without unnecessary repetition;
(5) stating the date of the offense with sufficient particularity to
show that the offense was committed within the period of
limitations applicable to that offense;
(6) stating the time of the offense as definitely as can be done if
time is of the essence of the offense;
(7) stating the place of the offense with sufficient particularity to
show that the offense was committed within the jurisdiction of the
court where the charge is to be filed;
(8) stating the place of the offense as definitely as can be done if
the place is of the essence of the offense; and
(9) stating the name of every defendant, if known, and if not
known, by designating the defendant by any name or description
by which the defendant can be identified with reasonable
certainty.
(b) An indictment shall be signed by:
(1) the foreman or five (5) members of the grand jury; and
(2) the prosecuting attorney or the prosecuting attorney's deputy.
(c) An information shall be signed by the prosecuting attorney or the
prosecuting attorney's deputy.
(d) An indictment or information shall have stated upon it the names
of all the material witnesses. Other witnesses may afterwards be
subpoenaed by the state, but unless the name of a witness is stated on
the indictment or information, no continuance shall be granted to the
state due to the absence of the witness.
(e) The indictment or information shall be a plain, concise, and
definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense
charged. It need not contain a formal commencement, a formal
conclusion, or any other matter not necessary to the statement.
Presumptions of law and matters of which judicial notice is taken need
not be stated.
(f) The indictment may be substantially in the following form:
|
IN THE __________ COURT OF INDIANA, 20____
|
|
STATE OF INDIANA
|
|
vs.
|
CAUSE NUMBER _______
|
|
A _________ B _________
|
The grand jury of the county of _________ upon their oath or
affirmation do present that AB, on the _________ day of __________
20____ at the county of _________ in the state of Indiana (HERE SET
FORTH THE OFFENSE CHARGED).
(g) The information may be substantially in the same form as the
indictment, substituting for the words, "the grand jury of the county of
_________, upon their oath or affirmation so present" the following:
"CD, being duly sworn on his oath or having affirmed, says." It is not
necessary in an information to state the reason why the proceeding is
by information rather than indictment.
(h) This section applies to a traffic offense (as defined in IC 9-13-2-183) if the traffic offense is:
(1) a felony; or
(2) a misdemeanor.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.3. Amended by Acts
1982, P.L.204, SEC.19; P.L.320-1983, SEC.11; P.L.158-1994, SEC.1;
P.L.2-2005, SEC.119; P.L.85-2013, SEC.115; P.L.161-2018,
SEC.117.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
95
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case:
Zitlaw v. State, 880 N.E.2d 724 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
Zitlaw v. State, 880 N.E.2d 724 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 12× “2001); Ind.Code § 35-34-1-2. "Absence of detail in an information is fatal only if the phraseology misleads the defendant or fails to give him notice of the charges against him.”
Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999).
· cites it 4× “CODE § 35-34-1-2. [43] For example, in this case, the State could have charged as follows: Robert M.”
Neff v. State, 915 N.E.2d 1026 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 6× “Indiana Code Section 35-34-1-4(a)(1), combined with Indiana Code Section 35-84-1-6(a)(1), permits dismissal of an information that is defective because it does not "substantially conform" to the requirements of Indiana Code Section 35-34-1-2. Generally, a failure to challenge a…”
Marybeth Lebo v. State of Indiana, 977 N.E.2d 1031 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 8× “” Ind. Code § 35-34-1-2 (a)(4). The indictment or information also must contain “a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.”
Love v. State, 761 N.E.2d 806 (Ind. 2002).
· cites it 3× “) Indiana Code § 35-34-1-2(a)(5) requires that an information "[state] the date of the offense with sufficient particularity to show that the offense was committed within the period of limitations applicable to that offense.”
Medea Woods v. State of Indiana, 980 N.E.2d 439 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 8× “Indiana Code section 35-34-1-2 as a whole sets forth the required contents of the charging information, the overarching purpose of which is to give the defendant particular notice of the crimes with which she is charged during the applicable statute of limitations period so that…”
Benham v. State of Indiana, 637 N.E.2d 133 (Ind. 1994).
· cites it 4× “2d 136, 141 ; Ind. Code § 35-34-1-2 (a)(7). However, upon a motion to dismiss which claims that there "exists some jurisdictional impediment to conviction of the defendant for the offense charged," Ind.”
Laney v. State, 868 N.E.2d 561 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “It did not have to include any additional information and it meets the requirements of Indiana Code Section 35-34-1-2. In fact, as noted earlier, the original information simply alleging Laney was a principal in KF.”
Hodges v. State, 524 N.E.2d 774 (Ind. 1988).
· cites it 4× “S-5219 were so vague as to the time of occurrence that they failed to state the offenses with sufficient certainty, as required by Ind. Code § 35-34-1-2 (a)(5) and (6). Each count alleged the act occurred from August 1982 to September 1984.”
Matthew Pavlovich v. State of Indiana, 6 N.E.3d 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “2007) (quoting I.C. § 35-34-1-2(d)), trans. denied. “The State is not required to include detailed factual allegations in a charging information.”
Kelly v. State, 535 N.E.2d 140 (Ind. 1989).
· cites it 4× “" The information which must be included in an indictment or information alleging a criminal offense is delineated in Ind. Code § 35-34-1-2 . Among other requirements, an information must state "the name of the offense in the words of the statute or any other words conveying the…”
VanHorn v. State, 889 N.E.2d 908 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “Indiana Code Section 35-34-1-2 requires the charging information or indictment to "set forth the nature and elements of the offense charged in plain and concise language without unnecessary repetition.”
Ind. Code § 35-34-1-2(a): 4 cases
Ind. Code § 35-34-1-2(a)(3): 2 cases
Ind. Code § 35-34-1-2(a)(4): 11 cases
Marybeth Lebo v. State of Indiana, 977 N.E.2d 1031 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
“” Ind. Code § 35-34-1-2 (a)(4). The indictment or information also must contain “a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.”
Medea Woods v. State of Indiana, 980 N.E.2d 439 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
“Indiana Code section 35-34-1-2 as a whole sets forth the required contents of the charging information, the overarching purpose of which is to give the defendant particular notice of the crimes with which she is charged during the applicable statute of limitations period so that…”
Ind. Code § 35-34-1-2(a)(5): 12 cases
Love v. State, 761 N.E.2d 806 (Ind. 2002).
“) Indiana Code § 35-34-1-2(a)(5) requires that an information "[state] the date of the offense with sufficient particularity to show that the offense was committed within the period of limitations applicable to that offense.”
Neff v. State, 915 N.E.2d 1026 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
“Indiana Code Section 35-34-1-4(a)(1), combined with Indiana Code Section 35-84-1-6(a)(1), permits dismissal of an information that is defective because it does not "substantially conform" to the requirements of Indiana Code Section 35-34-1-2. Generally, a failure to challenge a…”
Hodges v. State, 524 N.E.2d 774 (Ind. 1988).
“S-5219 were so vague as to the time of occurrence that they failed to state the offenses with sufficient certainty, as required by Ind. Code § 35-34-1-2 (a)(5) and (6). Each count alleged the act occurred from August 1982 to September 1984.”
Medea Woods v. State of Indiana, 980 N.E.2d 439 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
“Indiana Code section 35-34-1-2 as a whole sets forth the required contents of the charging information, the overarching purpose of which is to give the defendant particular notice of the crimes with which she is charged during the applicable statute of limitations period so that…”
Ind. Code § 35-34-1-2(a)(6): 4 cases
Love v. State, 761 N.E.2d 806 (Ind. 2002).
“) Indiana Code § 35-34-1-2(a)(5) requires that an information "[state] the date of the offense with sufficient particularity to show that the offense was committed within the period of limitations applicable to that offense.”
Ind. Code § 35-34-1-2(a)(7): 2 cases
Benham v. State of Indiana, 637 N.E.2d 133 (Ind. 1994).
“2d 136, 141 ; Ind. Code § 35-34-1-2 (a)(7). However, upon a motion to dismiss which claims that there "exists some jurisdictional impediment to conviction of the defendant for the offense charged," Ind.”
Ind. Code § 35-34-1-2(a)(8): 1 case
Neff v. State, 915 N.E.2d 1026 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
“Indiana Code Section 35-34-1-4(a)(1), combined with Indiana Code Section 35-84-1-6(a)(1), permits dismissal of an information that is defective because it does not "substantially conform" to the requirements of Indiana Code Section 35-34-1-2. Generally, a failure to challenge a…”
Ind. Code § 35-34-1-2(b): 3 cases
Ind. Code § 35-34-1-2(c): 2 cases
Ind. Code § 35-34-1-2(d): 11 cases
Matthew Pavlovich v. State of Indiana, 6 N.E.3d 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
“2007) (quoting I.C. § 35-34-1-2(d)), trans. denied. “The State is not required to include detailed factual allegations in a charging information.”
Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999).
“CODE § 35-34-1-2. [43] For example, in this case, the State could have charged as follows: Robert M.”
Marybeth Lebo v. State of Indiana, 977 N.E.2d 1031 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
“” Ind. Code § 35-34-1-2 (a)(4). The indictment or information also must contain “a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.”
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.