Sec. 15. (a) In a prosecution for child molesting
under IC 35-42-4-3, a prosecution for incest under IC 35-46-1-3, or a
prosecution for an attempt or a conspiracy to commit child molesting
or incest, evidence that the defendant has committed another crime or
act of child molesting or incest or attempted or conspired to commit
another crime or act of child molesting or incest:
(1) against the same victim; or
(2) that involves a similar crime or act of child molesting or incest
against a different victim;
is admissible.
(b) If the state proposes to offer evidence described under
subsection (a), the state must disclose the evidence to the defendant,
including statements made by witnesses or a summary of the substance
of any testimony that is expected to be offered at the defendant's trial:
(1) at least fifteen (15) days before the date the defendant's trial
is scheduled to begin; or
(2) at a later date as determined by the court for good cause.
(c) The court shall hold a hearing out of the presence of the jury
regarding the admissibility of the evidence described under subsection
(a). Even if the court determines that the evidence is relevant, the
evidence may be excluded if the probative value of the evidence is
substantially outweighed by:
(1) the danger of:
(A) unfair prejudice;
(B) confusion of the issues; or
(C) misleading the jury; or
(2) considerations of:
(A) undue delay;
(B) waste of time; or
(C) needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
However, if the court finds that all or some of the evidence is
admissible, the court shall enter an order stating what evidence may be
introduced.
(d) This section may not be construed to limit the right to introduce
evidence at a trial that would otherwise be admissible to prove any of
the following:
(1) Motive.
(2) Opportunity.
(3) Intent.
(4) Plan.
(5) Knowledge.
(6) Identity.
(7) Absence of mistake or accident.
As added by P.L.232-1993, SEC.2.
IC 35-37-4.5Chapter 4.5. Sex Crimes Victims and Polygraph Examinations
35-37-4.5-2Prohibition against requiring a sex crime victim
to submit to a polygraph examination 35-37-4.5-3Polygraph refusal; duties of law enforcement
officers 35-37-4.5-4Voluntary submission to polygraph examination
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case:
State v. DeJesus, 953 A.2d 45 (Conn. 2008).
State v. DeJesus, 953 A.2d 45 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 2× “3 (West 2002); Ind.Code Ann. § 35-37-4-15 (Michie 1998); Iowa Code Ann.”
State v. Williams, 830 So. 2d 984 (La. 2002).
“Code § 1108 (West 1995); Ind.Code Ann. § 35-37-4-15 (Michie 1998); Mo.”
State v. Miller, 718 So. 2d 960 (La. 1998).
“1992)(holding the depraved sexual instinct exception is no longer recognized in Indiana), legislatively overruled by the enactment of Indiana Code 35-37-4-15 (which reinstated the exception allowing for the admissibility of sex acts against other victims similar to the charged…”
Koonce v. United States, 993 A.2d 544 (D.C. 2010).
“Other states have adopted, in pertinent part, Federal Rule of Evidence 414, which renders admissible "evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of child molestation.”
Mote v. State, 775 N.E.2d 687 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “Mote’s motion explained that such evidence is inadmissible because the State did not comply with Indiana Code section 35-37-4-15, nor did it supply reasonable notice of its intent to use the prior arrests or convictions pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b), and Mote had not…”
Day v. State, 643 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994).
“CODE § 35-37-4-15(b)(1), which requires fifteen days notice before trial that the State intends to offer evidence of the defendant's act of child molesting against a different victim.”
Jameson Curry v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 22× “Curry’s Motions under Indiana Code Section 35-37-4-15 Curry also contends that the trial court’s decision to admit the recorded interview into evidence was an abuse of discretion because it allowed impermissible hearsay statements from Detective Morales into evidence.”
— Ind. Code § 35-37-4-15(a) — 2 cases
Koonce v. United States, 993 A.2d 544 (D.C. 2010).
“Other states have adopted, in pertinent part, Federal Rule of Evidence 414, which renders admissible "evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of child molestation.”
Jameson Curry v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
“Curry’s Motions under Indiana Code Section 35-37-4-15 Curry also contends that the trial court’s decision to admit the recorded interview into evidence was an abuse of discretion because it allowed impermissible hearsay statements from Detective Morales into evidence.”
— Ind. Code § 35-37-4-15(b) — 1 case
Jameson Curry v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
“Curry’s Motions under Indiana Code Section 35-37-4-15 Curry also contends that the trial court’s decision to admit the recorded interview into evidence was an abuse of discretion because it allowed impermissible hearsay statements from Detective Morales into evidence.”
— Ind. Code § 35-37-4-15(b)(1) — 1 case
Day v. State, 643 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994).
“CODE § 35-37-4-15(b)(1), which requires fifteen days notice before trial that the State intends to offer evidence of the defendant's act of child molesting against a different victim.”
— Ind. Code § 35-37-4-15(c) — 1 case
Jameson Curry v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
“Curry’s Motions under Indiana Code Section 35-37-4-15 Curry also contends that the trial court’s decision to admit the recorded interview into evidence was an abuse of discretion because it allowed impermissible hearsay statements from Detective Morales into evidence.”
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.