Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-37-2-6 (2026)
Retirement and deliberation of jury; officer in charge; restrictions
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 6. (a) After hearing the charge, the jury shall retire to the jury room for deliberation. They shall retire under the charge of an officer, who shall be sworn by the court to:
(1) keep the jury together in the jury room or other place ordered by the court;
(2) furnish them food as directed by the court; and
(3) not permit any person to speak or communicate with them.
(b) An officer may not communicate with a juror except:
(1) as provided in sections 2 and 4 of this chapter;
(2) to ask them if they have agreed on a verdict; or
(3) when ordered to do so by the court.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.6.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Bradford v. State, 675 N.E.2d 296 (Ind. 1996).
Bradford v. State, 675 N.E.2d 296 (Ind. 1996). “The final argument presented by the defendant is that the trial court erred by permitting the jury to separate overnight after beginning deliberations.”
Buckner v. State, 857 N.E.2d 1011 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “01 because the words "discussion" and "deliberation" have the same meaning and, therefore, the provisions of Indiana Code section 35-37-2-6(a)(1), which prohibits juror separation once the "deliberation" has begun, were violated.”
Fuller v. State, 852 N.E.2d 22 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “5 Although he correctly observes that Indiana Code Section 35-37-2-6(a) contemplates sequestration during deliberations, he fails to acknowledge that the statutory requirement for sequestration is invoked when the jury is charged.”
Pagan v. State, 809 N.E.2d 915 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “The statute prohibiting outside communications with jurors during deliberations, now located at Indiana Code Section 35-37-2-6, was first enacted in 1905.”
Farrell v. State, 622 N.E.2d 488 (Ind. 1993). “§ 35-37-2-6 (West 1986) controls jury deliberations in criminal cases.”
Drake v. State, 467 N.E.2d 686 (Ind. 1984). “Code § 35-1-37-4 (since repealed) (for current version see Ind.Code § 35-37-2-6). The statute states in pertinent part: "After hearing the charge, the jury may either decide in court or retire for deliberation.”
Spurlock v. State, 718 N.E.2d 773 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “Although recodified at Ind.Code 35-37-2-6, the same version of the statute was in effect during Spurlock’s trial.”
Jason Lee Sowers v. State of Indiana, 988 N.E.2d 360 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “Initially, we observe that Ind. Code § 35-37-2-6 (b) provides that “[a]n officer may not communicate with a juror except: (1) as provided in sections 2 and 4 of this chapter; (2) to ask them if they have agreed on a verdict; or (3) when ordered to do so by the court.”
Feliciano v. State, 467 N.E.2d 748 (Ind. 1984). “See Ind.Code § 35-37-2-6 [West Supp.1983]. It is clear the bailiff was sworn once.”
White v. State, 643 N.E.2d 414 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). “CODE § 35-37-2-6 (formerly IND. CODE § 85-1-87-4).”
Lyndon C. Davis v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “1996) (citing Ind. Code § 35-37-2-6 (a)(1)), reh’g denied.”
Marcus A. Minor, Jr. v. State of Indiana, 252 N.E.3d 979 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025). “[21] Indiana Code section 35-37-2-6(b) (1981) provides that after the jury retires to the jury room for deliberation, they are placed under the charge of an officer, or bailiff, who may not communicate with the jury except to ask if they have agreed on a verdict, or when ordered…”
Ind. Code § 35-37-2-6(a): 1 case
Fuller v. State, 852 N.E.2d 22 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “5 Although he correctly observes that Indiana Code Section 35-37-2-6(a) contemplates sequestration during deliberations, he fails to acknowledge that the statutory requirement for sequestration is invoked when the jury is charged.”
Ind. Code § 35-37-2-6(a)(1): 2 cases
Buckner v. State, 857 N.E.2d 1011 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “01 because the words "discussion" and "deliberation" have the same meaning and, therefore, the provisions of Indiana Code section 35-37-2-6(a)(1), which prohibits juror separation once the "deliberation" has begun, were violated.”
Bradford v. State, 675 N.E.2d 296 (Ind. 1996). “The final argument presented by the defendant is that the trial court erred by permitting the jury to separate overnight after beginning deliberations.”
Ind. Code § 35-37-2-6(a)(3): 1 case
Spurlock v. State, 718 N.E.2d 773 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “Although recodified at Ind.Code 35-37-2-6, the same version of the statute was in effect during Spurlock’s trial.”
Ind. Code § 35-37-2-6(a)(l): 1 case
Bradford v. State, 675 N.E.2d 296 (Ind. 1996). “The final argument presented by the defendant is that the trial court erred by permitting the jury to separate overnight after beginning deliberations.”
Ind. Code § 35-37-2-6(b): 2 cases
Jason Lee Sowers v. State of Indiana, 988 N.E.2d 360 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “Initially, we observe that Ind. Code § 35-37-2-6 (b) provides that “[a]n officer may not communicate with a juror except: (1) as provided in sections 2 and 4 of this chapter; (2) to ask them if they have agreed on a verdict; or (3) when ordered to do so by the court.”
Marcus A. Minor, Jr. v. State of Indiana, 252 N.E.3d 979 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025). “[21] Indiana Code section 35-37-2-6(b) (1981) provides that after the jury retires to the jury room for deliberation, they are placed under the charge of an officer, or bailiff, who may not communicate with the jury except to ask if they have agreed on a verdict, or when ordered…”
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.