Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-37-3-3 (2026)
Grant of use immunity; instruction of witness; contempt; perjury
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 3. (a) Upon request of the prosecuting attorney, the court shall grant use immunity to a witness. The court shall instruct the witness, by written order or in open court, that any evidence the witness gives, or evidence derived from that evidence, may not be used in any criminal proceeding against that witness, unless the evidence is volunteered by the witness or is not responsive to a question by the prosecuting attorney. The court shall 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 has given in a prosecution for perjury under IC 35-44.1-2-1.
(c) If a witness refuses to give the evidence after the witness has been granted use immunity, the court may find the witness in contempt.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.6. Amended by P.L.126-2012, SEC.49.
IC 35-37-4Chapter 4. Evidence and Protection of Certain Witnesses
35-37-4-1Competency of witness
35-37-4-2Credibility; general moral character
35-37-4-3Depositions
35-37-4-4Sex crimes; admissibility of evidence of past
sexual conduct; procedure
35-37-4-5Evidence unlawfully obtained by officer in good
faith; exclusion
35-37-4-6Application of section; "protected person";
admissibility of statement or videotape; notice to
defendant; jury instructions
35-37-4-7Pecuniary loss or gain; proof
35-37-4-8Application of section; testimony of protected
person; closed circuit television; videotape;
notice to defendant
35-37-4-9Certificates of title; certified copies as prima
facie evidence of title
35-37-4-10Repealed
35-37-4-11Safeguarding victim from contact with accused
and relatives of accused; waiting areas
35-37-4-12Physical safety of victim or victim's family in
danger; exclusion of evidence; disclosure to court
35-37-4-13"Forensic DNA analysis" defined; admissibility
35-37-4-14Evidence of a previous battery
35-37-4-15Child molestation; evidence of prior acts
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case: Sweeney v. State, 704 N.E.2d 86 (Ind. 1998).
Sweeney v. State, 704 N.E.2d 86 (Ind. 1998). “Under Ind. Code § 35-37-3-3 (1988), only the prosecutor may request immunity for witnesses in criminal prosecutions and only the trial court may grant such immunity.”
Christie Wilson v. State of Indiana, 988 N.E.2d 1211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “1 On November 8, 2012, the court entered an Order Granting Use Immunity which states: The State of Indiana having filed the State’s Grant of Use Immunity pursuant to Indiana Code 35-37-3-3, and the Court having reviewed the same, does now grant the witness, Christie Wilson, use…”
Brown v. State, 725 N.E.2d 823 (Ind. 2000). “The State also claimed that the witnesses in Brown’s co-conspirators’ trial did not hear any of his testimony in that matter or see transcripts of Brown’s testimony. The trial court concluded that “the State has established that there is an independent source to the information…”
Michael Leroy Tunis v. State of Indiana, 129 N.E.3d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding Tunis was in direct contempt of court for refusing to testify after the court granted him use immunity and derivative use immunity under Indiana Code section 35-37-3-3. II. Whether Tunis's 180-day sentence was reasonable…”
Sweeney v. State, 886 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “See Ind.Code § 35-37-3-3. Although it declined to recognize the United States Supreme Court's "willingness to extend Strickland to novel contexts” the Seventh Circuit Court went on to say "None of this should be read to condone the wholly inadequate performance of defense…”
Charles E. Sweeney, Jr. v. Steve Carter, Attorney Gen. of Indiana, 361 F.3d 327 (7th Cir. 2004). “” See Ind.Code § 35-37-3-3. One of Sweeney’s lawyers, Michael McDaniel, actually testified at the § 2254 hearing that he inferred that there was a use-immunity agreement from the prosecutor’s use of “buzz words of use immunity,” but it is plain that neither he nor Sweeney’s…”
In Re Cudworth, 815 N.E.2d 1019 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “Ind.Code § 35-37-3-3 (1998) (emphasis added).”
In Re: Prosecutor's Subpoena Regarding S.H. & S.C. S.H. v. State of Indiana, 984 N.E.2d 630 (Ind. 2013). “The court shall instruct the -witness, by written order or in open court, that any evidence the witness gives, or evidence derived from that evidence, may not be used in any criminal proceeding against that witness, unless the evidence is volunteered by the witness or is not…”
Bivins v. State, 735 N.E.2d 1116 (Ind. 2000). “” Ind. Code § 35-37-3-3 (a) (1988). 8 . At the post-conviction hearing, Weyls explained that he had always denied any involvement in the crimes, and that he and Chambers met the day after the murder to agree to "keep their mouths shut.”
Furrer v. State, 709 N.E.2d 744 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “Specifically, she argues that implementation of the statute on use immunity, I.C. § 35-37-3-3, 3 will violate her constitutional privilege against self-incrimination because the State will in effect force her to testify either that she gave false information in her first…”
Everroad v. State, 571 N.E.2d 1240 (Ind. 1991). “Moreover, as can be inferred from a reading of the immunity statute, Ind. Code § 35-37-3-3 , use immunity is to be granted by the court upon the motion of the prosecution.”
Nybo v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “"Indiana Code § 35-37-3-3 provides for the grant of use and derivative use immunity for a witness in a trial.”
— Ind. Code § 35-37-3-3(a) — 4 cases
Christie Wilson v. State of Indiana, 988 N.E.2d 1211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “1 On November 8, 2012, the court entered an Order Granting Use Immunity which states: The State of Indiana having filed the State’s Grant of Use Immunity pursuant to Indiana Code 35-37-3-3, and the Court having reviewed the same, does now grant the witness, Christie Wilson, use…”
In Re: Prosecutor's Subpoena Regarding S.H. & S.C. S.H. v. State of Indiana, 984 N.E.2d 630 (Ind. 2013). “The court shall instruct the -witness, by written order or in open court, that any evidence the witness gives, or evidence derived from that evidence, may not be used in any criminal proceeding against that witness, unless the evidence is volunteered by the witness or is not…”
Michael Leroy Tunis v. State of Indiana, 129 N.E.3d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding Tunis was in direct contempt of court for refusing to testify after the court granted him use immunity and derivative use immunity under Indiana Code section 35-37-3-3. II. Whether Tunis's 180-day sentence was reasonable…”
Alex Cordell Hughes v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).
— Ind. Code § 35-37-3-3(b) — 1 case
Furrer v. State, 709 N.E.2d 744 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “Specifically, she argues that implementation of the statute on use immunity, I.C. § 35-37-3-3, 3 will violate her constitutional privilege against self-incrimination because the State will in effect force her to testify either that she gave false information in her first…”
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.