Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowIndiana Court of Appeals
Robert A. Neace v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-1615
Criminal. Appeal from the Noble Circuit Court, Judge Kevin P. Wallace. Reverses Neace’s conviction for Level 4 felony child molesting due to the trial court’s error in allowing inadmissible vouching testimony. Holds that the admission of this testimony was not harmless as the State lacked substantial independent evidence to support the conviction, which primarily depended on the credibility of the victim whose account varied significantly. Judge Vaidik authored the opinion. Judges Mathias and Pyle concur. Appellant’s attorney: Josiah Swinney, Indianapolis, Indiana. Appellee’s attorneys: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Kayla Smiley v. Katie Jenner
No. 23-2543
Civil. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Judge James P. Hanlon. Affirms the district court’s denial of Smiley’s motion for a preliminary injunction against Indiana’s law prohibiting instruction on human sexuality for students in pre-kindergarten through third grade. The court concluded Smiley did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on her First or Fourteenth Amendment claims, stating that the law does not significantly infringe on protected speech and is not unconstitutionally vague. Judge Scudder authored the opinion. Judges Jackson-Akiwumi and Pryor concur.
The following opinion was issued on April 20 after The Indiana Lawyer’s deadline.
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Count US IN, et al. v. Diego Morales, et al.
No. 26-1783
Civil. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Judge Richard L. Young. Grants the State of Indiana’s emergency motion to stay a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of Senate Bill 10 concerning voter identification. The court emphasizes the importance of maintaining election rules and the risks associated with altering them shortly before an election, which can cause voter confusion and disruption. The ruling ensures that the current identification requirement remains in effect during the primary election. The opinion was authored per curiam.
This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.