Sec. 9. (a) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age
who knowingly or intentionally performs or submits to sexual
intercourse or other sexual conduct (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-221.5)
with a child less than sixteen (16) years of age, commits sexual
misconduct with a minor, a Level 5 felony. However, the offense is:
(1) a Level 4 felony if it is committed by a person at least
twenty-one (21) years of age; and
(2) a Level 1 felony if it is committed by using or threatening the
use of deadly force, if it is committed while armed with a deadly
weapon, if it results in serious bodily injury, or if the commission
of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the
victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1))
or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1.1-7) or
knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled
substance without the victim's knowledge.
(b) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who knowingly or
intentionally performs or submits to any fondling or touching with a
child less than sixteen (16) years of age with intent to arouse or to
satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the older person,
commits sexual misconduct with a minor, a Level 6 felony. However,
the offense is:
(1) a Level 5 felony if it is committed by a person at least
twenty-one (21) years of age; and
(2) a Level 2 felony if it is committed by using or threatening the
use of deadly force, while armed with a deadly weapon, or if the
commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim,
without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1.1-7) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the
drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
(c) It is a defense that the accused person reasonably believed that
the child was at least sixteen (16) years of age at the time of the
conduct. However, this subsection does not apply to an offense
described in subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2).
(d) It is a defense that the child is or has ever been married.
However, this subsection does not apply to an offense described in
subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2).
(e) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section if all the
following apply:
(1) The person is not more than four (4) years older than the
victim.
(2) The relationship between the person and the victim was a
dating relationship or an ongoing personal relationship. The term
"ongoing personal relationship" does not include a family
relationship.
(3) The crime:
(A) was not committed by a person who is at least twenty-one
(21) years of age;
(B) was not committed by using or threatening the use of deadly
force;
(C) was not committed while armed with a deadly weapon;
(D) did not result in serious bodily injury;
(E) was not facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the
victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1.1-7) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the
drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge;
and
(F) was not committed by a person having a position of
authority or substantial influence over the victim.
(4) The person has not committed another sex offense (as defined
in IC 11-8-8-5.2) (including a delinquent act that would be a sex
offense if committed by an adult) against any other person.
(5) The person is not promoting prostitution (as defined in IC 35-45-4-4) with respect to the victim even though the person has
not been charged with or convicted of the offense.
As added by P.L.79-1994, SEC.15. Amended by P.L.33-1996,
SEC.9; P.L.216-1996, SEC.21; P.L.31-1998, SEC.8; P.L.266-2003,
SEC.1; P.L.216-2007, SEC.45; P.L.158-2013, SEC.445; P.L.144-2018,
SEC.28; P.L.40-2019, SEC.13; P.L.186-2025, SEC.238.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
252
cases (
14 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case:
Ware v. State, 816 N.E.2d 1167 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
Ware v. State, 816 N.E.2d 1167 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 9× “*1174 Sexual misconduct with a minor is defined by Indiana Code § 35-42-4-9, which provides in pertinent part: (a) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who, with a child at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16) years of age, performs or submits to…”
Wendy Thompson v. State of Indiana, 5 N.E.3d 383 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 6× “I.C. § 35-42-4-9. The distinction between these subsections and the other portions of the statute is the violent aspect of the crime under these portions of the statute.”
Edward Gilliland v. State of Indiana, 979 N.E.2d 1049 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 10× “See Ind. Code §§ 35-42-4-9 , 35-42-4-7.14 Moreover, contrary to Gilliland’s suggestion, those statutes do not require the fondling or touching of a sexual organ.”
Kocielko v. State, 938 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 8× “Ind.Code § 35-42-4-9. 2 . Ind.Code § 35-50-28.”
Gaiskov v. Holder, 567 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 8× “Code § 35-42-4-9 (b), the government must prove (1) that the defendant was at least eighteen years old at the time of the offense, (2) that the defendant fondled or touched (or submitted to fondling or touching by) a fourteen or fifteen-year-old minor, and (3) that the defendant…”
Moon v. State, 823 N.E.2d 710 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 6× “Like Moon, we have found no case discussing the burden of proof on the defense of reasonable belief under Indiana Code § 35-42-4-9. The well-settled standard by which we review challenges to jury instructions affords great deference to the trial court.”
Everling v. State, 929 N.E.2d 1281 (Ind. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 35-42-4-9 states in relevant part, (a) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who, with a child at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16) years of age, performs or submits to sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct commits sexual…”
Stout v. State, 834 N.E.2d 707 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “After due consideration of the trial court's decision, we cannot say that Stout's executed sentence of fifteen years is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character.”
Wright v. State, 881 N.E.2d 1018 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “§ 35-42-4-1 through [I.C. § 35-42-4-9 or [I.C. § ] XX-XX-X-X .”
Abernathy v. State, 852 N.E.2d 1016 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “Ind.Code § 35-42-4-9(A)(1) (2004). 2 . Ind.”
Payton v. State, 818 N.E.2d 493 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “[4] Ind.Code § 35-42-4-9. [5] The trial court also ordered Payton to serve the thirty-nine-year sentence consecutive to sentences for two other felony cause numbers.”
Bruce Ryan v. State of Indiana, 9 N.E.3d 663 (Ind. 2014).
· cites it 2× “See Ind.Code § 35-42-4-9. 2 . Additional facts will be supplied as needed and may be found in the opinion of the Court of Appeals.”
— Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9(2)(1) — 1 case
Kocielko v. State, 938 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
“Ind.Code § 35-42-4-9. 2 . Ind.Code § 35-50-28.”
— Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9(A)(1) — 1 case
Abernathy v. State, 852 N.E.2d 1016 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
“Ind.Code § 35-42-4-9(A)(1) (2004). 2 . Ind.”
— Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9(A)(l) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9(B)(1) — 1 case
Abernathy v. State, 852 N.E.2d 1016 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
“Ind.Code § 35-42-4-9(A)(1) (2004). 2 . Ind.”
— Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9(a) — 32 cases
Moon v. State, 823 N.E.2d 710 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
“Like Moon, we have found no case discussing the burden of proof on the defense of reasonable belief under Indiana Code § 35-42-4-9. The well-settled standard by which we review challenges to jury instructions affords great deference to the trial court.”
— Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9(a)(1) — 25 cases
Ware v. State, 816 N.E.2d 1167 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
“*1174 Sexual misconduct with a minor is defined by Indiana Code § 35-42-4-9, which provides in pertinent part: (a) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who, with a child at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16) years of age, performs or submits to…”
Stout v. State, 834 N.E.2d 707 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
“After due consideration of the trial court's decision, we cannot say that Stout's executed sentence of fifteen years is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character.”
Moon v. State, 823 N.E.2d 710 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
“Like Moon, we have found no case discussing the burden of proof on the defense of reasonable belief under Indiana Code § 35-42-4-9. The well-settled standard by which we review challenges to jury instructions affords great deference to the trial court.”
— Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9(a)(2) — 4 cases
Wendy Thompson v. State of Indiana, 5 N.E.3d 383 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
“I.C. § 35-42-4-9. The distinction between these subsections and the other portions of the statute is the violent aspect of the crime under these portions of the statute.”
— Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9(a)(l) — 10 cases
— Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9(b) — 12 cases
Gaiskov v. Holder, 567 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 2009).
“Code § 35-42-4-9 (b), the government must prove (1) that the defendant was at least eighteen years old at the time of the offense, (2) that the defendant fondled or touched (or submitted to fondling or touching by) a fourteen or fifteen-year-old minor, and (3) that the defendant…”
Edward Gilliland v. State of Indiana, 979 N.E.2d 1049 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
“See Ind. Code §§ 35-42-4-9 , 35-42-4-7.14 Moreover, contrary to Gilliland’s suggestion, those statutes do not require the fondling or touching of a sexual organ.”
— Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9(b)(1) — 18 cases
Ware v. State, 816 N.E.2d 1167 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
“*1174 Sexual misconduct with a minor is defined by Indiana Code § 35-42-4-9, which provides in pertinent part: (a) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who, with a child at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16) years of age, performs or submits to…”
Kocielko v. State, 938 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
“Ind.Code § 35-42-4-9. 2 . Ind.Code § 35-50-28.”
Stout v. State, 834 N.E.2d 707 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
“After due consideration of the trial court's decision, we cannot say that Stout's executed sentence of fifteen years is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character.”
— Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9(b)(2) — 3 cases
Wendy Thompson v. State of Indiana, 5 N.E.3d 383 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
“I.C. § 35-42-4-9. The distinction between these subsections and the other portions of the statute is the violent aspect of the crime under these portions of the statute.”
— Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9(b)(l) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9(c) — 3 cases
— Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9(e) — 4 cases
— Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9(e)(4) — 2 cases
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.