Sec. 2. The defendant and the state may obtain a
change of judge if the judge:
(1) is biased or prejudiced against the moving party and that the
moving party cannot obtain a fair trial before the judge;
(2) is related by blood or marriage to any party to the cause;
(3) is unable to properly perform the functions of his office
because of mental or physical disabilities;
(4) is disqualified by reason of any conflict of interest; or
(5) should be disqualified for any other cause.
A motion made under this section must be verified or accompained by
an affidavit specifically stating facts showing that at least one (1) of
these causes exists.
The motion must be filed within the time limitations specified in
Indiana Rules of Criminal Procedure.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.5.
IC 35-36-6Chapter 6. Change of Venue
35-36-6-1Verified motion by defendant; bias or prejudice;
hearing; duties of clerk and sheriff 35-36-6-4New prosecution; election of court by defendant;
alternative disposition 35-36-6-6New prosecution; new indictment or information 35-36-6-7Failure of defendant to elect county of trial;
remand 35-36-6-8Costs and expenses; liability; audit, certification,
and collection 35-36-6-9Prosecuting attorney; pauper counsel;
appointment; reimbursement for fees and
expenses 35-36-6-11Murder, Level 1, or Level 2 felony proceedings;
selection of jury; verdict and judgment
Notes of Decisions
In the Matter of: Thomas M. Dixon, 994 N.E.2d 1129 (Ind. 2013).
· cites it 4× “) Second, he cited Indiana Code section 35-36-5-2, providing for a change of judge if the judge “is biased or prejudiced against the moving party and that the moving party cannot obtain a fair trial before the judge,” “is disqualified by reason of any conflict of interest,” or…”
Kail v. State, 528 N.E.2d 799 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 4× “” I.C. § 35-36-5-2. “In criminal actions and proceedings to enforce a statute defining an infraction, a motion for change of judge or change of venue from the county shall be verified or accompanied by an affidavit signed by the Criminal Defendant or the Prosecuting Attorney…”
Blacknell v. State, 502 N.E.2d 899 (Ind. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Blacknell argues that the subject matter of Canon 3(C)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct constitutes “other cause” for obtaining a change of judge as used in Ind.Code § 35-36-5-2(5). Canon 3(C)(1) states: “A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his…”
Crawford v. State, 634 N.E.2d 86 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “CODE § 35-36-5-2 (1988 Ed.), addressing a change of judge on discretionary grounds, require that motions "be filed within the time limitations specified in Indiana Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
Lewis v. State, 911 N.E.2d 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Because we do not view the parties' petitions as motions for change of judge, we are similarly unpersuaded by the State's claim that their petitions failed to comport with the requirements of Indiana Code section 35-36-5-2, which also governs motions for change of judge.”
Adolfo Lopez v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “4 Criminal Rule 12(B) provides that a defendant may request a change of judge for bias or prejudice by timely5 filing an affidavit that the judge has a personal bias or prejudice against the defendant and that such request for change of judge 4 Similarly, Lopez’s motion cites…”
Ind. Code § 35-36-5-2(1): 1 case
Crawford v. State, 634 N.E.2d 86 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994).
“CODE § 35-36-5-2 (1988 Ed.), addressing a change of judge on discretionary grounds, require that motions "be filed within the time limitations specified in Indiana Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
Ind. Code § 35-36-5-2(5): 1 case
Blacknell v. State, 502 N.E.2d 899 (Ind. 1987).
“Blacknell argues that the subject matter of Canon 3(C)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct constitutes “other cause” for obtaining a change of judge as used in Ind.Code § 35-36-5-2(5). Canon 3(C)(1) states: “A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his…”
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.