Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-37-3-1 (2026)
Refusal of witness to answer or produce item; hearing; decision on right to refuse
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 1. (a) If a witness, in any hearing or trial occurring after an indictment or information has been filed, refuses to answer any question or produce any item, the court shall remove the jury, if one is present, and immediately conduct a hearing on the witness's refusal. After such a hearing, the court shall decide whether the witness is required to answer the question or produce the item.
(b) If the prosecuting attorney has reason to believe that a witness will refuse to answer a question or produce an item during any criminal trial, the prosecuting attorney may submit the question or request to the trial court. The court shall hold a hearing to determine if the witness may refuse to answer the question or produce the item.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.6.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1989–2019 · leading case: State v. Eubanks, 729 N.E.2d 201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
State v. Eubanks, 729 N.E.2d 201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “The prosecutor did not offer either witness immunity pursuant to Ind.Code § 35-37-3-1, [7] and the questioning of the witnesses occurred in the presence of the jury.”
Duso v. State, 866 N.E.2d 321 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “See Ind.Code § 35-37-3-1; 5 Martin v. State, 535 N.”
In Re: Prosecutor's Subpoena Regarding S.H. & S.C. S.H. v. State of Indiana, 984 N.E.2d 630 (Ind. 2013). “See generally Ind. Code §§ 35-37-3-1 et seq. (2008); 35-34-2-1 et seq.”
Martin v. State, 535 N.E.2d 493 (Ind. 1989). “He asserts the trial court failed to comply with Ind.Code § 35-37-3-1(a), which states that if a wit ness refuses to answer a question, the court shall immediately conduct a hearing on the witness's refusal, after which the court shall decide whether the witness is required to…”
Christie Wilson v. State of Indiana, 988 N.E.2d 1211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “2013) (citing Ind. Code §§ 35-37-3-1 et seq. (2008); 35-34-2-1 et seq.”
Tucker v. State, 534 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind. 1989). “The State cites Ind.Code § 35-37-3-1(a) which sets out the procedure to be used when a witness refuses to be sworn to testify.”
State of Indiana v. Brian J. Taylor, 35 N.E.3d 287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “In the second appeal, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified its earlier opinion and held: “as a matter of law, a person who actually participated in, attended, or was contemporaneously informed of the unlawful intercept must be deemed to have been tainted by his direct 4 We…”
In Re Kefalidis, 714 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “[2] See Ind.Code §§ 35-37-3-1 to -3 (addressing statutory immunity available with regard to questions asked of a witness "in a hearing or trial occurring after an indictment or information has been filed ") (emphasis supplied).”
Michael Leroy Tunis v. State of Indiana, 129 N.E.3d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “2d at 633 (citing I.C. §§ 35-37-3-1 et seq. (witness immunity in trials and hearings) and I.”
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). “Ind.Code §§ 35-37-3-1 through 3 provide for a grant of use immunity on a prosecutor’s request, if a witness, in any hearing or trial occurring after an indictment or information has been filed, refuses to answer any question or produce any item.”
In Re Sh, 969 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Ind.Code §§ 35-37-3-1 through 3 provide for a grant of use immunity on a prosecutor's request, if a witness, in any hearing or trial occurring after an indictment or information has been filed, refuses to answer any question or produce any item.”
Arising out of Janiszewski v. Tonn & Blank, Inc., 714 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “See Ind.Code §§ 35-37-3-1 to -3 (addressing statutory immunity available with regard to questions asked of a witness "in a hearing or trial occurring after an indictment or information has been filed ") (emphasis supplied).”
— Ind. Code § 35-37-3-1(a) — 3 cases
Martin v. State, 535 N.E.2d 493 (Ind. 1989). “He asserts the trial court failed to comply with Ind.Code § 35-37-3-1(a), which states that if a wit ness refuses to answer a question, the court shall immediately conduct a hearing on the witness's refusal, after which the court shall decide whether the witness is required to…”
Duso v. State, 866 N.E.2d 321 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “See Ind.Code § 35-37-3-1; 5 Martin v. State, 535 N.”
Tucker v. State, 534 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind. 1989). “The State cites Ind.Code § 35-37-3-1(a) which sets out the procedure to be used when a witness refuses to be sworn to testify.”
— Ind. Code § 35-37-3-1(b) — 1 case
State of Indiana v. Brian J. Taylor, 35 N.E.3d 287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “In the second appeal, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified its earlier opinion and held: “as a matter of law, a person who actually participated in, attended, or was contemporaneously informed of the unlawful intercept must be deemed to have been tainted by his direct 4 We…”
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.