Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-41-1-9 (2026)
Repealed
✓ current as of May 2026
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.10. Amended by P.L.183-1984, SEC.1. Repealed by P.L.114-2012, SEC.98.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 84
cases, 1984–2020 · leading case: Riehle v. State, 823 N.E.2d 287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
Riehle v. State, 823 N.E.2d 287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “" Ind.Code § 35-41-1-9(1). The State alleged in the charging information that Riehle "touched his penis to the anus of [K.”
Stewart v. State, 768 N.E.2d 433 (Ind. 2002). “We note, however, that it is too plain for further elaboration that a complete state of undress is not required for a child to be a victim of deviate sexual conduct as defined in Indiana Code section 35-41-1-9(1). As for Stewart's contention that there was no explanation of what…”
Downey v. State, 726 N.E.2d 794 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “Had the legislature intended for Ind.Code § 35-41-1-9 to encompass acts involving body parts other than the mouth or anus, it was free to so specify its intent.”
Atteberry v. State, 911 N.E.2d 601 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “See Ind.Code § 35-41-1-9 (defining "deviate sexual conduct" as "an act involving: (1) a sex organ of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or (2) the penetration of the sex organ or anus of a person by an object.”
Mitchem v. State, 685 N.E.2d 671 (Ind. 1997). “Ind.Code § 35-41-1-9 (1993). 6 . Although he did not tender a written jury instruction at trial, defendant contends on appeal that the jury instruction should have read as follows: To convict a defendant of Attempted Murder, a Class A Felony, as charged in Count III, the State…”
Brian S. Adcock v. State of Indiana, 22 N.E.3d 720 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “” I.C. § 35-41-1-9 (2002). 6 Adcock does not deny that L.”
Rupert v. State, 717 N.E.2d 1209 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “Whether the scrotum is a “sex organ” as contemplated by Ind.Code § 35-41-1-9 (1993). II. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.”
Hampton v. State, 921 N.E.2d 27 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “" 3 Ind.Code § 35-41-1-9. Thus, to convict Hampton of child molesting as a class A felony, the State was required to prove that Hampton, who was at least twenty-one years of age, performed or submitted to deviate sexual conduct with J.”
Scott v. State, 771 N.E.2d 718 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “" Ind.Code § 35-41-1-9 (Burns Code Ed. Repl.”
Andrew Stetler v. State of Indiana, 972 N.E.2d 404 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “At the time Stetler was charged and tried, deviate sexual conduct was defined at Indiana Code section 35-41-1-9. As of July 1, 2012, the definition is found at section 35-31.”
Kocielko v. State, 938 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “" Additionally, the State alleged that Ko-cielko committed Sexual Misconduct with a Minor by causing fondling of his penis with intent to satisfy sexual desires, in violation of Indiana Code Section 35-42-4-9(b)(1), which provides that it is a Class C felony for a person at…”
Wisneskey v. State, 736 N.E.2d 763 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “However, the offense is a Class A felony if: (1) it is committed by a person at least twenty-one (21) years of age; Ind.Code § 35-41-1-9 defines “Deviate sexual conduct” as an act involving: “(1) a sex organ of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or (2) the…”
— Ind. Code § 35-41-1-9(1) — 8 cases
Riehle v. State, 823 N.E.2d 287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “" Ind.Code § 35-41-1-9(1). The State alleged in the charging information that Riehle "touched his penis to the anus of [K.”
Stewart v. State, 768 N.E.2d 433 (Ind. 2002). “We note, however, that it is too plain for further elaboration that a complete state of undress is not required for a child to be a victim of deviate sexual conduct as defined in Indiana Code section 35-41-1-9(1). As for Stewart's contention that there was no explanation of what…”
Stewart v. State, 521 N.E.2d 675 (Ind. 1988).
Wisneskey v. State, 736 N.E.2d 763 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “However, the offense is a Class A felony if: (1) it is committed by a person at least twenty-one (21) years of age; Ind.Code § 35-41-1-9 defines “Deviate sexual conduct” as an act involving: “(1) a sex organ of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or (2) the…”
Bennett v. State, 705 N.E.2d 176 (Ind. 1998).
— Ind. Code § 35-41-1-9(2) — 4 cases
Bennett v. State, 705 N.E.2d 176 (Ind. 1998).
David Michael Flynn v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
Steven L. O'Bryant v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
Curtis E. Jones v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
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.