Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-49-2-1 (2026)
Obscene matter or performance
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 1. A matter or performance is obscene for purposes of this article if:
(1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, finds that the dominant theme of the matter or performance, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex;
(2) the matter or performance depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct; and
(3) the matter or performance, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.33.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Smith v. State, 779 N.E.2d 111 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
Smith v. State, 779 N.E.2d 111 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “" See Ind.Code § 35-49-2-1. But whatever the court decides, the condition should be narrowly tailored to the goals of protecting the public and promoting Smith's rehabilitation.”
Adams v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1169 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “Specifically, Adams asserts that Indiana's Obscenity Statute, Indiana Code section 35-49-2-1, is unconstitutionally vague and that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions.”
McVey v. State, 863 N.E.2d 434 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “” See Ind.Code § 35-49-2-1. But whatever the court decides, the condition should be narrowly tailored to the goals of protecting the public and promoting [McVey’s] rehabilitation.”
Nathaniel Bennett v. State of Indiana, 119 N.E.3d 1057 (Ind. 2019). “As a condition of Bennett's placement in community corrections, he was prohibited from possessing obscene matter as defined by Indiana Code § 35-49-2-1. In 2017, community corrections officers performed a compliance check at Bennett's home.”
Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46 (1989). “" Ind. Code § 35-49-2-1 (1988). Cf. Pope v.”
Van Sant v. State, 523 N.E.2d 229 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). “Van Sant's fifth attack on the constitutionality of Indiana's Obscenity Statute focuses on subsection (3) of Indiana Code section 35-49-2-1, which sets out the third prong of the Miller obscenity test, as follows: "the matter or performance, taken as a whole, lacks serious…”
Collins v. State, 911 N.E.2d 700 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “" See Ind.Code § 35-49-2-1. But whatever the court decides, the condition should be narrowly tailored to the goals of protecting the public and promoting [the probationer's] rehabilitation.”
Foster v. State, 813 N.E.2d 1236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “The definition of "child pornography" found in the federal statute might be a useful tool in this endeavor.”
Rodney Melton v. State of Indiana, 993 N.E.2d 253 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “Code § 35-49-3-2 and Ind.Code § 35-49-2-1. 549 N.E.2d at 1088 .”
Riffel v. State, 549 N.E.2d 1084 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990). “"Ind. Code 35-49-2-1. Obscene matter or performance.”
State v. Virtue, 658 N.E.2d 605 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). “CODE § 35-49-2-1. 2 . LC. § 35-49-2-1 provides that a matter or performance is obscene if: (1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, finds that the dominant theme of the matter or performance, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex;…”
Lewis v. State, 726 N.E.2d 836 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “A matter or performance is obscene if: (1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, finds that the dominant theme of the matter or performance, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex; (2) the matter or performance depicts or describes, in…”
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.