Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-34-2-8 (2026)
Witnesses; use immunity
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 8. (a) Upon request by the prosecuting attorney, the court shall grant use immunity to a witness before the grand jury. The court shall instruct the witness by written order or in open court that any evidence the witness gives before the grand jury, or evidence derived from that evidence, may not be used in any criminal prosecution against that witness, unless the evidence is volunteered by the witness or is not responsive to a question by the grand jury or the prosecutor. The court shall then instruct the witness that the witness must answer the questions asked and produce the items requested.
(b) A grant of use immunity does not prohibit the use of evidence the witness gives in a prosecution for perjury under IC 35-44.1-2-1.
(c) If a witness refuses to give evidence after the witness has been granted use immunity, the witness shall be brought before the court and the court shall proceed as if the witness had refused in open court.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.126-2012, SEC.48.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: In Re: Prosecutor's Subpoena Regarding S.H. & S.C. S.H. v. State of Indiana, 984 N.E.2d 630 (Ind. 2013).
In Re: Prosecutor's Subpoena Regarding S.H. & S.C. S.H. v. State of Indiana, 984 N.E.2d 630 (Ind. 2013). “2d at 1091 , it concluded the legislature’s explicit reference to grand jury proceedings in Ind.Code § 35-34-2-8 cannot be read to restrict the right of a prosecutor to seek use immunity when prosecution is initiated by means of an information rather than an indictment.”
Christie Wilson v. State of Indiana, 988 N.E.2d 1211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “On appeal, the Court mentioned “[o]ur constitutions,” observed that the Court in Kastigar had held that statutes which compel testimony in exchange for both use immunity and derivative use immunity are constitutional, and concluded that Ind. Code § 35-34-2-8 did not violate the…”
State v. Peters, 637 N.E.2d 145 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). “Prior to testifying, Peters was granted immunity from prosecution pursuant to Ind.Code § 35-34-2-8. 1 On July 16, 1992, the grand jury issued an indictment against Peters charging him with Count I, Theft of materials from the sign shop and Count II, Perjury during his grand jury…”
Abner v. State, 479 N.E.2d 1254 (Ind. 1985). “Code § 35-6-3-1 (Burns 1979) [repealed effective September 1, 1982; for provisions effective September 1, 1982 see Ind.Code §§ 35-34-2-8 and 35-37-3-1-35-37-3-3], permits only the granting of use immunity.”
State of Indiana v. I.T., 4 N.E.3d 1139 (Ind. 2014). “I.C. § 35-34-2-8(a) (2008). Though the statutory language clearly grants use immunity, it is far less clear whether its protection also extends to derivative use of the statement to prompt further investigation to develop similar evidence from other sources.”
In Re Direct Contempt of Caito, 459 N.E.2d 1179 (Ind. 1984). “Based on the above authority, we find IC § 35-34-2-8 does not violate the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, nor Art.”
In Re: Prosecutor's Subpoena Regarding S.H. & S.C. S.H. v. State of Indiana, 969 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “The parents correctly note the language of the statute governing use immunity, Ind.Code § 35-34-2-8, addresses such immunity only when there is a grand jury: (a) Upon request by the prosecuting attorney, the court shall grant use immunity to a witness before the grand jury.”
In Re Sh, 969 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “The parents correctly note the language of the statute governing use immunity, Ind.Code § 35-34-2-8, addresses such immunity only when there is a grand jury: (a) Upon request by the prosecuting attorney, the court shall grant use immunity to a witness before the grand jury.”
Menashi Cohen v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). “On February 8, 2022, the trial court entered an Order Granting Use Immunity which ordered Cohen to answer questions asked of him in a grand jury investigation and provided that, pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-34-2-8 , “answers given to any questions asked of [him] during…”
State of Indiana v. I.T. (Ind. 2014). “I.C. § 35-34-2-8(a) (2008). Though the statutory language clearly grants use immunity, it is far less clear whether its protection also extends to derivative use of the statement to prompt further investi- gation to develop similar evidence from other sources.”
— Ind. Code § 35-34-2-8(a) — 3 cases
In Re: Prosecutor's Subpoena Regarding S.H. & S.C. S.H. v. State of Indiana, 984 N.E.2d 630 (Ind. 2013). “2d at 1091 , it concluded the legislature’s explicit reference to grand jury proceedings in Ind.Code § 35-34-2-8 cannot be read to restrict the right of a prosecutor to seek use immunity when prosecution is initiated by means of an information rather than an indictment.”
State of Indiana v. I.T., 4 N.E.3d 1139 (Ind. 2014). “I.C. § 35-34-2-8(a) (2008). Though the statutory language clearly grants use immunity, it is far less clear whether its protection also extends to derivative use of the statement to prompt further investigation to develop similar evidence from other sources.”
State of Indiana v. I.T. (Ind. 2014). “I.C. § 35-34-2-8(a) (2008). Though the statutory language clearly grants use immunity, it is far less clear whether its protection also extends to derivative use of the statement to prompt further investi- gation to develop similar evidence from other sources.”
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.