Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-34-1-9 (2026)
Joinder of offenses or defendants
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 9. (a) Two (2) or more offenses may be joined in the same indictment or information, with each offense stated in a separate count, when the offenses:
(1) are of the same or similar character, even if not part of a single scheme or plan; or
(2) are based on the same conduct or on a series of acts connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan.
(b) Two (2) or more defendants can be joined in the same indictment or information when:
(1) each defendant is charged with each offense included;
(2) each of the defendants is charged as a conspirator or party to the commission of the offense and some of the defendants are also charged with one (1) or more offenses alleged to be in furtherance of the conspiracy or common scheme or plan; however, a party to the commission of an offense or conspirator need not be designated as such in the indictment or information; or
(3) conspiracy is not charged and not all of the defendants are charged in each count, if it is alleged in the indictment or information that the offenses charged:
(A) were part of a common scheme or plan; or
(B) were so closely connected in respect to time, place, and occasion that it would be difficult to separate proof of one (1) charge from proof of the others.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.3.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 111
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Daniel Lee Pierce v. State of Indiana, 29 N.E.3d 1258 (Ind. 2015).
Daniel Lee Pierce v. State of Indiana, 29 N.E.3d 1258 (Ind. 2015). “Ind. Code § 35-34-1-9 (a) (2008). But “whenever two (2) or more offenses have been joined for trial in the same indictment or information solely on the ground that they are of the same or similar character, the defendant shall have a right to a severance of the offenses.”
Frentz v. State, 875 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Improper Joinder ¡Denial of Motions to Sever Indiana Code Section 35-34-1-9 reads in pertinent part as follows: (a) Two (2) or more offenses may be joined in the same indictment or information, with each offense stated in a separate count, when the offenses: (1) are of the same…”
Quanardel Wells v. State of Indiana, 2 N.E.3d 123 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “However, offenses "maybe sufficiently 'connected together' to justify join-der under [Ind.Code § 35-34-1-9(2)(@2) ] "if the State can establish that a common modus operendi linked the crimes and that the same motive induced the criminal behavior' " Ben-Yisrayl v.”
Robert L. Slone v. State of Indiana, 11 N.E.3d 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “We have previously stated that while the phrase “episode of criminal conduct” may involve somewhat similar language to Indiana Code section 35-34-1-9(a), “we decline to conflate the ‘episode of criminal conduct’ analysis for sentencing defendants with the ‘single scheme or plan’…”
Blanchard v. State, 802 N.E.2d 14 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “Indiana Code § 35-34-1-9(a) allows two or more offenses to be joined in the same charging document when the offenses are: (1) of the same or similar character, even if not part of a single scheme or plan; or A (2) based on the same conduct or on a series of acts connected…”
Hodges v. State, 524 N.E.2d 774 (Ind. 1988). “In the interest of judicial economy and since Counts I and II were of the same type, their joinder was permitted pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-34-1-9 (a)(1), resulting in Hodges being charged with five counts of child molesting against T.”
O'connell v. State, 742 N.E.2d 943 (Ind. 2001). “1999) (quoting Ind.Code § 35-34-1-9 (1998)). O’Con-nell urges that this holding has become the “law of the case.”
Sweatt v. State, 887 N.E.2d 81 (Ind. 2008). “See I.C. §§ 35-34-1-9, -10 (requiring joinder only when offenses are "based on the same *87 conduct or on a series of acts connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan" unless the "interests of justice" require otherwise).”
Gall v. State, 811 N.E.2d 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “Indiana Code section 35-34-1-9(2)(2) provides that two or more offenses may be joined when the offenses "are based on the same conduct or on a series of acts connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan.”
Charles Robinson v. State of Indiana, 56 N.E.3d 652 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “Indiana Code Section 35-34-1-9(a) provides: Two (2) or more offenses may be joined in the same indictment or information, with each offense stated in a separate count, when the offenses: (1) are of the same or similar character, even if not part of a single scheme or plan; or…”
Lampkins v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1268 (Ind. 1997). “Ind.Code § 35-34-1-9 permits the joinder of defendants in a single prosecution under the circumstances present here.”
Timothy L. Hahn v. State of Indiana, 67 N.E.3d 1071 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “341] under Ind. Code 35-34-1-9,” and that prosecution in this case was barred by Ind.”
— Ind. Code § 35-34-1-9(2) — 1 case
Quanardel Wells v. State of Indiana, 2 N.E.3d 123 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “However, offenses "maybe sufficiently 'connected together' to justify join-der under [Ind.Code § 35-34-1-9(2)(@2) ] "if the State can establish that a common modus operendi linked the crimes and that the same motive induced the criminal behavior' " Ben-Yisrayl v.”
— Ind. Code § 35-34-1-9(2)(2) — 1 case
Gall v. State, 811 N.E.2d 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “Indiana Code section 35-34-1-9(2)(2) provides that two or more offenses may be joined when the offenses "are based on the same conduct or on a series of acts connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan.”
— Ind. Code § 35-34-1-9(a) — 40 cases
Blanchard v. State, 802 N.E.2d 14 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “Indiana Code § 35-34-1-9(a) allows two or more offenses to be joined in the same charging document when the offenses are: (1) of the same or similar character, even if not part of a single scheme or plan; or A (2) based on the same conduct or on a series of acts connected…”
Frentz v. State, 875 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Improper Joinder ¡Denial of Motions to Sever Indiana Code Section 35-34-1-9 reads in pertinent part as follows: (a) Two (2) or more offenses may be joined in the same indictment or information, with each offense stated in a separate count, when the offenses: (1) are of the same…”
Hall v. State, 870 N.E.2d 449 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
Jackson v. State, 938 N.E.2d 29 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1141 (Ind. 1997).
— Ind. Code § 35-34-1-9(a)(1) — 9 cases
Daniel Lee Pierce v. State of Indiana, 29 N.E.3d 1258 (Ind. 2015). “Ind. Code § 35-34-1-9 (a) (2008). But “whenever two (2) or more offenses have been joined for trial in the same indictment or information solely on the ground that they are of the same or similar character, the defendant shall have a right to a severance of the offenses.”
Hodges v. State, 524 N.E.2d 774 (Ind. 1988). “In the interest of judicial economy and since Counts I and II were of the same type, their joinder was permitted pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-34-1-9 (a)(1), resulting in Hodges being charged with five counts of child molesting against T.”
Quanardel Wells v. State of Indiana, 2 N.E.3d 123 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “However, offenses "maybe sufficiently 'connected together' to justify join-der under [Ind.Code § 35-34-1-9(2)(@2) ] "if the State can establish that a common modus operendi linked the crimes and that the same motive induced the criminal behavior' " Ben-Yisrayl v.”
Henderson v. State, 647 N.E.2d 7 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).
Ford v. State, 506 N.E.2d 835 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987).
— Ind. Code § 35-34-1-9(a)(2) — 29 cases
Daniel Lee Pierce v. State of Indiana, 29 N.E.3d 1258 (Ind. 2015). “Ind. Code § 35-34-1-9 (a) (2008). But “whenever two (2) or more offenses have been joined for trial in the same indictment or information solely on the ground that they are of the same or similar character, the defendant shall have a right to a severance of the offenses.”
Robert L. Slone v. State of Indiana, 11 N.E.3d 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “We have previously stated that while the phrase “episode of criminal conduct” may involve somewhat similar language to Indiana Code section 35-34-1-9(a), “we decline to conflate the ‘episode of criminal conduct’ analysis for sentencing defendants with the ‘single scheme or plan’…”
Frentz v. State, 875 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Improper Joinder ¡Denial of Motions to Sever Indiana Code Section 35-34-1-9 reads in pertinent part as follows: (a) Two (2) or more offenses may be joined in the same indictment or information, with each offense stated in a separate count, when the offenses: (1) are of the same…”
Gall v. State, 811 N.E.2d 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “Indiana Code section 35-34-1-9(2)(2) provides that two or more offenses may be joined when the offenses "are based on the same conduct or on a series of acts connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan.”
Charles Robinson v. State of Indiana, 56 N.E.3d 652 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “Indiana Code Section 35-34-1-9(a) provides: Two (2) or more offenses may be joined in the same indictment or information, with each offense stated in a separate count, when the offenses: (1) are of the same or similar character, even if not part of a single scheme or plan; or…”
— Ind. Code § 35-34-1-9(b) — 1 case
Kyle DeHart v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
— Ind. Code § 35-34-1-9(b)(1) — 1 case
Tiandre Harris v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
— Ind. Code § 35-34-1-9(b)(2) — 1 case
Adrian Edwards v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
— Ind. Code § 35-34-1-9(b)(3)(A) — 1 case
Tiandre Harris v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
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.