Sec. 3. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and
section 4 of this chapter, a person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) disseminates matter to minors that is harmful to minors (as
described in IC 35-49-2);
(2) displays matter that is harmful to minors in an area to which
minors have visual, auditory, or physical access, unless each
minor is accompanied by the minor's parent or guardian;
(3) sells, rents, or displays for sale or rent to any person matter
that is harmful to minors within five hundred (500) feet of the
nearest property line of a school or church;
(4) engages in or conducts a performance before minors that is
harmful to minors;
(5) engages in or conducts a performance that is harmful to
minors in an area to which minors have visual, auditory, or
physical access, unless each minor is accompanied by the minor's
parent or guardian;
(6) misrepresents the minor's age for the purpose of obtaining
admission to an area from which minors are restricted because of
the display of matter or a performance that is harmful to minors;
or
(7) misrepresents that the person is a parent or guardian of a
minor for the purpose of obtaining admission of the minor to an
area where minors are being restricted because of display of
matter or performance that is harmful to minors;
commits a Level 6 felony.
(b) This section does not apply if a person disseminates, displays,
or makes available the matter described in subsection (a) through the
Internet, computer electronic transfer, or a computer network unless:
(1) the matter is obscene under IC 35-49-2-1;
(2) the matter is child sex abuse material under IC 35-42-4-4; or
(3) the person distributes the matter to a child less than eighteen
(18) years of age believing or intending that the recipient is a
child less than eighteen (18) years of age.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.33. Amended by P.L.59-1995,
SEC.4; P.L.3-2002, SEC.4; P.L.140-2006, SEC.35; P.L.158-2013,
SEC.648; P.L.234-2023, SEC.5; P.L.218-2025, SEC.22.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
49
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case:
Zitlaw v. State, 880 N.E.2d 724 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
Zitlaw v. State, 880 N.E.2d 724 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 76× “Resolution of the issues raised by Zitlaw requires interpretation of Ind.Code § 35-49-3-3. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law reserved for the courts.”
Salter v. State, 906 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 52× “Code § 35-42-4-4, and five counts of dissemination of matter harmful to minors, Class D felonies, Ind.Code § 35-49-3-3. We reverse. ISSUES Salter presents several issues for our review, two of which we find to be dispositive and restate as: (1) Whether the trial court erred in…”
Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988).
· cites it 2× “Ind. Code § 35-49-3-3 (Supp. 1987) Iowa Iowa Code § 728.”
Windhorst v. State, 868 N.E.2d 504 (Ind. 2007).
· cites it 2× “I.C. § 35-49-3-3. 3 . Even in McMahon the court held that under the amended statutory regime a sentencing statement was necessary "anytime the trial court imposes a sentence other than the advisory sentence.”
Phelps v. State, 914 N.E.2d 283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 3× “§ 35-42-4-5(a); dissemination of matter harmful to a minor, a Class D felony, I.C. § 35-49-3-3; and the trial court's determination that he is violent sexual predator.”
Scuro v. State, 849 N.E.2d 682 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “Ind.Code § 35-49-3-3. 4 .The State argues that the jury may have returned a guilty verdict on the dissemination charge with respect to D.”
Noah Pittman v. State of Indiana, 45 N.E.3d 805 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “In King , the defendant was convicted of, among other things, attempted dissemination of matter harmful to minors, in which the completed crime is governed by Ind. Code § 35-49-3-3 and. provided at the time in relevant part: (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a person who…”
Haycraft v. State, 760 N.E.2d 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “§ 35-49-3-3. [4] Id. § 35-46-1-8. [5] Haycraft argues that the prosecutor was "referring to [Haycraft] as a witness and stating that [his] `testimony' was uncontroverted as well.”
State of Indiana v. Sameer Girish Thakar, 82 N.E.3d 257 (Ind. 2017).
· cites it 4× “]” Ind. Code § 35-49-3-3 (a)(1). Furthermore, Indiana Code section 35-49-1-4 (2008) defines “minor” as “any individual under the age of eighteen (18) years,” and Indiana Code section 35-49-2-2 (2008) defines “harmful to minors” as follows: A matter or performance is harmful to…”
Nunley v. State, 916 N.E.2d 712 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 35-49-3-3. 3 . RC. is AY.'s step-father.”
Lewis v. State, 726 N.E.2d 836 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 3× “…these two caveats, I concur in the affirmance of the convictions and the sentences imposed. NOTES [1] IND.CODE § 35-49-3-3 (Supp.1997).”
— Ind. Code § 35-49-3-3(02) — 1 case
Zitlaw v. State, 880 N.E.2d 724 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
“Resolution of the issues raised by Zitlaw requires interpretation of Ind.Code § 35-49-3-3. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law reserved for the courts.”
— Ind. Code § 35-49-3-3(2) — 3 cases
Zitlaw v. State, 880 N.E.2d 724 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
“Resolution of the issues raised by Zitlaw requires interpretation of Ind.Code § 35-49-3-3. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law reserved for the courts.”
— Ind. Code § 35-49-3-3(3) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-49-3-3(4) — 2 cases
— Ind. Code § 35-49-3-3(5) — 1 case
Zitlaw v. State, 880 N.E.2d 724 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
“Resolution of the issues raised by Zitlaw requires interpretation of Ind.Code § 35-49-3-3. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law reserved for the courts.”
— Ind. Code § 35-49-3-3(a) — 5 cases
Zitlaw v. State, 880 N.E.2d 724 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
“Resolution of the issues raised by Zitlaw requires interpretation of Ind.Code § 35-49-3-3. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law reserved for the courts.”
— Ind. Code § 35-49-3-3(a)(1) — 6 cases
Zitlaw v. State, 880 N.E.2d 724 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
“Resolution of the issues raised by Zitlaw requires interpretation of Ind.Code § 35-49-3-3. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law reserved for the courts.”
— Ind. Code § 35-49-3-3(a)(2) — 4 cases
— Ind. Code § 35-49-3-3(a)(3) — 1 case
Zitlaw v. State, 880 N.E.2d 724 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
“Resolution of the issues raised by Zitlaw requires interpretation of Ind.Code § 35-49-3-3. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law reserved for the courts.”
— Ind. Code § 35-49-3-3(a)(4) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-49-3-3(a)(5) — 1 case
Zitlaw v. State, 880 N.E.2d 724 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
“Resolution of the issues raised by Zitlaw requires interpretation of Ind.Code § 35-49-3-3. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law reserved for the courts.”
— Ind. Code § 35-49-3-3(a)(l) — 3 cases
Zitlaw v. State, 880 N.E.2d 724 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
“Resolution of the issues raised by Zitlaw requires interpretation of Ind.Code § 35-49-3-3. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law reserved for the courts.”
State of Indiana v. Sameer Girish Thakar, 82 N.E.3d 257 (Ind. 2017).
“]” Ind. Code § 35-49-3-3 (a)(1). Furthermore, Indiana Code section 35-49-1-4 (2008) defines “minor” as “any individual under the age of eighteen (18) years,” and Indiana Code section 35-49-2-2 (2008) defines “harmful to minors” as follows: A matter or performance is harmful to…”
— Ind. Code § 35-49-3-3(b) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-49-3-3(b)(1) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-49-3-3(b)(3) — 1 case
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.