The Indiana Rules of Evidence govern what a jury is allowed to hear in a courtroom: which facts count as relevant, who can testify, when out-of-court statements come in, what remains confidential, and how documents and objects get verified before they reach the jury. The Indiana Supreme Court holds exclusive authority to adopt and amend these rules, and once they take effect they override any conflicting state statute.1Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code 34-8-1-3 – Power of Supreme Court to Adopt, Amend, and Rescind Procedural Rules Whether you are a party to a lawsuit, a witness under subpoena, or just trying to understand why a judge sustained an objection, the sections below walk through the rules that come up most often.
What Counts as Relevant, and What Still Gets Excluded
Every piece of evidence has to clear a relevance threshold first. Under Rule 401, evidence is relevant if it makes any fact that matters to the case more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.2Indiana Rules of Court. Indiana Rules of Evidence – Rule 401 That bar sits deliberately low. A receipt placing you at a particular store at a particular time is relevant whenever your whereabouts matter, even if it proves nothing on its own.
Clearing relevance does not guarantee admission. Rule 403 lets a judge exclude otherwise relevant evidence when its usefulness is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusing the jury, or wasting time. The word “substantially” matters. The rule tips in favor of admitting evidence, so a judge needs a real reason to keep it out. A graphic injury photograph might be relevant to show the extent of harm, but if a less inflammatory image would do the same work, a judge can exclude the stronger version.
Hearsay and Its Exceptions
Hearsay is the single most litigated topic in evidence law. Rule 801 defines it as a statement made outside the current trial or hearing that a party offers to prove the truth of what the statement asserts.3Indiana Court Rules. Indiana Rules of Evidence – Rule 801 Definitions If your neighbor told you the defendant ran a red light, and you try to repeat that on the stand to prove the defendant actually ran the light, that is hearsay. The core problem: the neighbor is not in court, is not under oath, and cannot be cross-examined, so the jury has no way to size up their credibility.
Rule 801(d) treats some statements that look like hearsay as not hearsay at all. When a witness testifies at trial and is available for cross-examination, an earlier inconsistent statement given under oath at a deposition or other proceeding comes in. Prior consistent statements offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication also qualify, as do out-of-court identifications made shortly after perceiving a person.
Exceptions That Apply Whether or Not the Speaker Can Testify
Rule 803 lists exceptions that work regardless of whether the person who made the statement is available. Each one rests on circumstances that supply a built-in reason to trust the statement.4Indiana Court Rules. Indiana Rules of Evidence – Rule 803 Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay The ones you are most likely to encounter include:
- Present sense impression: a statement describing an event made while the person was perceiving it or immediately afterward, leaving almost no time to fabricate.
- Excited utterance: a statement about a startling event made while the person was still under the stress of it, with the emotional shock treated as a safeguard against lying.
- State of mind: statements about what a person was thinking, feeling, or intending at the time, such as “I plan to go to Chicago tomorrow.” These do not include statements of memory used to prove the remembered fact, with a narrow exception for wills.
- Statements for medical treatment: descriptions of symptoms, medical history, or the cause of an injury given to a provider for the purpose of getting treatment. People tend to be honest with the person trying to heal them.
- Business records: records made near the time of an event by someone with knowledge, kept as part of a regularly conducted business activity, where routine record-keeping was the practice. A custodian or qualified witness lays the foundation, or the records come in through a certification under Rule 902(11) or (12).
- Public records: government records documenting an office’s regularly conducted activities, matters observed under a legal duty to report, or factual findings from an authorized investigation.
Exceptions That Require an Unavailable Speaker
Rule 804 contains exceptions that only apply when the person who made the statement genuinely cannot testify. “Unavailable” covers death, serious illness, inability to locate the person despite reasonable efforts, refusal to testify in the face of a court order, or protection by a privilege.5Indiana Court Rules. Indiana Rules of Evidence – Rule 804 Exceptions When Declarant Unavailable A party who deliberately caused the unavailability cannot use these exceptions.
- Former testimony: testimony given under oath at a prior trial, hearing, or deposition, offered against a party who had the opportunity and motive to cross-examine the witness at the time.
- Dying declaration: a statement by someone who believed death was imminent, about the cause or circumstances of that death. Indiana’s version applies in any type of case, not only homicide prosecutions and civil actions.
- Statement against interest: a statement so damaging to the speaker’s financial, legal, or personal interests that no reasonable person would have made it unless they believed it was true. In criminal cases, a codefendant’s confession that also implicates the defendant does not qualify.
Rule 807 is a narrow safety valve. A hearsay statement that does not fit any specific exception may still come in if it carries strong guarantees of trustworthiness and is more useful on the point at issue than any other reasonably obtainable evidence. The party offering it must give written pretrial notice identifying the statement, its substance, and the speaker’s name and address. Courts use this exception sparingly.
Privileges: What Cannot Be Forced Out
Rule 501 starts from a default of no privilege. Everyone can be compelled to testify, disclose information, and produce documents unless a specific source of law carves out a protection.6Indiana Court Rules. Indiana Rules of Evidence – Rule 501 Privileges Those carve-outs can come from the Indiana Constitution, a state statute, a Supreme Court rule, or common law.
Indiana Code ยง 34-46-3-1 lists the main protected relationships. Attorneys cannot be forced to reveal confidential communications with their clients or the legal advice they provided. Physicians are shielded from disclosing what patients told them during treatment. Clergy members are protected from revealing confessions or confidential spiritual counseling. Spouses cannot be compelled to testify about private communications between them.7Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code 34-46-3-1 – Persons Not Required to Testify The law values honest communication inside these relationships more than it values the evidence that compelled testimony might produce.
Who Can Testify, and the Rules That Apply at the Stand
Indiana presumes every person is competent to testify unless a specific rule or statute says otherwise.8Indiana Rules of Court. Indiana Rules of Evidence – Rule 601 Before taking the stand, a witness must swear an oath or make a formal affirmation to tell the truth. If the witness speaks a language other than English or has a hearing impairment, the court appoints a qualified interpreter who also takes an oath to translate accurately.9Indiana Court Rules. Indiana Rules of Evidence Rule 604 – Interpreters
Lying under oath is perjury, a Level 6 felony in Indiana. A conviction carries a fixed prison term between six months and two and a half years, with an advisory sentence of one year, plus a possible fine of up to $10,000.10Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code 35-50-2-7 – Level 6 Felony The statute reaches both knowingly false statements and situations where a person makes two materially inconsistent statements under oath, one of which must be false.11Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code 35-44.1-2-1 – Perjury
Refreshing a Witness’s Memory
Witnesses sometimes draw blanks on the stand. Rule 612 allows an attorney to hand the witness a document or object to jog their memory.12Indiana Court Rules. Indiana Rules of Evidence – Rule 612 Writing or Object Used to Refresh Memory The witness looks at it, sets it aside, and testifies from refreshed recollection rather than reading from the page. The opposing attorney has the right to inspect whatever was used, cross-examine the witness about it, and introduce relevant portions into evidence. If the prosecution in a criminal case uses a document to refresh a witness’s memory but refuses to produce it when asked, the judge must strike that testimony or may even declare a mistrial.
Compelling an Unwilling Witness
When a witness will not appear voluntarily, Indiana Trial Rule 45 governs the subpoena process. A subpoena may be served by a sheriff, a party to the case, or any other person. An Indiana resident can only be required to attend in the county where they live, work, or conduct business in person, unless the court orders otherwise, and a nonresident can be compelled to attend within the county where they were served or within 40 miles of that location.13Indiana Court Rules. Indiana Trial Rules – Rule 45 Subpoena Ignoring a properly served subpoena can result in a contempt finding and enforcement by attachment.
Character Evidence, and Why Habit Is Different
Rule 404 generally bars character evidence. You cannot introduce evidence that someone has a particular personality trait just to argue they acted in line with that trait on a specific occasion. “He has a violent temper, so he probably started the fight” is exactly the reasoning the rule forbids.
Evidence of other crimes or bad acts can still come in for a different purpose. If prior conduct shows motive, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake, a court may admit it. The question is always why the evidence is being offered. Prior fraud convictions cannot be used to prove someone is generally dishonest, but they might be admitted to show a specific pattern that matches the current allegations.
Habit is a separate category and much easier to get in. Rule 406 covers a person’s automatic, repeated response to a specific situation, as opposed to a general disposition. If a factory worker always checks a particular safety gauge before starting a machine, that routine can come in as evidence that the worker did or did not follow the routine on the day in question.14Indiana Court Rules. Indiana Rules of Evidence – Rule 406 Habit Routine Practice The same applies to an organization’s routine practices. No corroboration or eyewitness testimony is required.
Attacking Credibility with Prior Convictions
Indiana takes a narrower approach to impeachment than the federal rules. Under Rule 609, a witness’s credibility can be attacked with evidence of a prior conviction, but only when the crime fits one of two specific categories.15Indiana Court Rules. Indiana Rules of Evidence – Rule 609 Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction
- Enumerated serious crimes: murder, treason, rape, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, arson, or criminal confinement.
- Dishonesty or false statement crimes: perjury, fraud, embezzlement, false pretense, or any similar offense.
Unlike the federal rule, which broadly covers any crime punishable by more than one year in prison, Indiana’s list is specific. A drug possession conviction, for example, would not qualify under either category even if it was a felony.
Convictions older than ten years face an extra hurdle. The evidence comes in only if its value to the case substantially outweighs the prejudice, and the party seeking to use it must give the other side reasonable written notice beforehand. Pardoned or annulled convictions are generally off-limits, and juvenile adjudications can only be used in criminal cases against witnesses other than the defendant, and only when necessary to fairly determine guilt or innocence.
Expert Witnesses
Rule 702 allows a person with specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to offer opinion testimony when it would help the jury understand the evidence or resolve a factual dispute.16Indiana Court Rules. Indiana Rules of Evidence – Rule 702 Testimony by Expert Witnesses That covers everyone from accident reconstructionists to forensic accountants.
Indiana’s rule has a split that separates it from the federal version. Rule 702(b) specifically requires that expert scientific testimony rest on “reliable scientific principles.” The Indiana Supreme Court has acknowledged that the federal Daubert framework, which asks whether a methodology has been tested, peer-reviewed, and widely accepted, is useful guidance for evaluating reliability under 702(b). But Indiana has declined to extend that reliability gatekeeping to non-scientific expert testimony, unlike the federal courts, which apply it to all expert opinion. A seasoned plumber testifying about industry practices in a negligence case faces a less rigorous threshold than a DNA analyst presenting forensic results.
Authenticating Documents and Objects
Before any physical item or document reaches the jury, the party offering it must show that it is what they claim it to be. Rule 901 requires this foundation of authenticity, and the most straightforward way is testimony from a witness who has direct knowledge of the item.17Indiana Court Rules. Indiana Rules of Evidence – Rule 901 Other accepted methods include having someone familiar with a person’s handwriting identify their script, comparing a questioned item to an authenticated specimen, or presenting evidence that a process or system produces accurate results.
That last method comes up constantly with digital evidence. Authenticating an email, text message, or social media post typically requires showing it came from the account attributed to a particular person and was not altered. That might involve testimony about the account holder’s identity, distinctive content that only the alleged author would know, or metadata from the platform itself. Judges expect more than a screenshot with a name on it.
Evidence That Authenticates Itself
Some evidence is treated as automatically authentic under Rule 902 and needs no live witness to verify its origin.18Indiana Court Rules. Indiana Rules of Evidence – Rule 902 Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating The most common categories include:
- Sealed and signed public documents bearing the seal and signature of a U.S., state, or local government entity.
- Certified copies of public records, certified as correct by the custodian or an authorized official.
- Official publications: books, pamphlets, or other materials published by a public authority.
- Printed material that appears to be a newspaper or periodical.
- Documents accompanied by a certificate of acknowledgment from a notary public or similar officer.
- Business records admitted through a written certification under Rule 902(11) or (12), provided the opposing party receives advance notice and a chance to challenge the records.
Self-authentication removes a procedural hurdle, but it does not make the content immune from challenge. The opposing party can still argue the document is inaccurate, irrelevant, or inadmissible on other grounds.
When the Court Can Skip Proof Entirely
Some facts are too well established to require formal proof. Rule 201 lets a judge take “judicial notice” of facts that are either widely known within the court’s local area or easily verified through unquestionable sources.19Indiana Rules of Court. Indiana Rules of Evidence – Rule 201 A Marion County court could take judicial notice that Indianapolis is the state capital without anyone testifying to it.
The effect depends on the type of case. In a civil trial, the judge instructs the jury to accept the noticed fact as conclusive. In a criminal case, the jury is told it may accept the fact but is not required to. That distinction protects criminal defendants’ constitutional right to have the jury decide every factual issue independently.