June 22, 2026

Indiana Court of Appeals
Erica Anders, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
No. 25A-CR-3171

Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Magistrate Matthew E. Symons and Judge Helen W. Marchal. Erica Anders was found guilty of battery resulting in bodily injury. On appeal, Anders contended there was a material variance between the charging information and the evidence presented at trial, asserting that this variance prejudiced her defense. The court disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s decision, concluding that the specific terms used in the charge were surplusage and did not affect the charge’s validity. The court found no material variance because Anders had sufficient notice of the charges to prepare her defense, which did not rely on the precise nature of the alleged touching. Chief Judge Tavitas authored the opinion, with Judges Bradford and Felix concurring. Appellant’s attorney: Steven J. Halbert, Indianapolis, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Tamela J. Hollingsworth v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-2809

Appeal from the Delaware Circuit Court, Judge Andrew J. Ramirez. Tamela J. Hollingsworth appeals her convictions for dealing in methamphetamine and dealing in a narcotic drug, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence and allowing specific closing arguments. The court affirms the convictions, finding that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings regarding the search warrant, chain of custody and GPS evidence. It also concludes that any comments made about Hollingsworth’s silence during trial did not constitute reversible error. Judge Brown authored the opinion, with Judges Altice and DeBoer concurring. Appellant’s attorney: Brandon E. Murphy, Cannon Bruns & Murphy, Muncie, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jarren Duff v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-2787

Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Judge James B. Osborn. Jarren Duff was convicted of aggravated battery and battery resulting in moderate bodily injury. On appeal, he argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his aggravated battery conviction, that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing, and that his sentence was inappropriate. The court rejected all claims, affirming the conviction and finding sufficient evidence to support Duff’s conviction for causing serious permanent disfigurement. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in weighing aggravating and mitigating factors, and Duff’s sentence was deemed appropriate considering the severity of the offense and his character. Chief Judge Tavitas authored the opinion, with Judges Weissmann and Foley concurring. Appellant’s attorney: Jan B. Berg, Indianapolis, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Sharon Parsons, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Timothy Parsons, et al., Appellants-Plaintiffs v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, Appellee-Defendant
No. 25A-CT-2307

Appeal from the LaPorte Superior Court, Judge Richard R. Stalbrink. Timothy Parsons died from methanol poisoning after drinking a product sold by an Indiana-based chemical processing facility. The facility’s insurance carrier, Crum & Forster, determined the presence of methanol was a “pollutant” in the product that was excluded from the company’s commercial general liability coverage, but qualified for coverage under third-party pollution liability coverage. The court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Crum & Forster and denied the Parsons’ claims under the commercial general liability policy coverage. The court determined that the presence of methanol in the product did not constitutively qualify as a pollutant under the policy terms. The decision reflects that the policy’s ambiguities necessitate coverage for the Parsons’ claims as a products liability action, not as pollution-related claims based on the definitions given by the insurer. The court reversed and remanded with instructions to deny the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and grant the Parsons’ cross-motion. Judge DeBoer authored the opinion, with Judges Brown and Altice concurring. Appellants’ attorneys: Robert W. Johnson, Travis N. Jensen, Janet M. Wallace, Michael D. Devor, Johnson Jensen LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana. Appellee’s attorneys: Crystal G. Rowe, Jacob W. Zigenfus, Kightlinger & Gray, LLP, New Albany, Indiana; and James J. Hickey, Kennedys Law LLP, Chicago, Illinois.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Anthony Minney v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-1689

Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Magistrate Ross Anderson. Anthony Minney appeals his convictions of Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug, Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, and Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana, as well as his adjudication as a habitual offender. The court affirms the trial court’s decisions, ruling that Minney waived his challenge to the police search of the vehicle by failing to object at trial, and that the search conducted was reasonable under the Indiana Constitution. Additionally, the court finds no error in the empaneling of a new jury for the habitual offender enhancement after the first jury was unable to reach a verdict. Judge May authored the opinion, with Judges Felix and Mathias concurring, though the latter voted the opinion should be “not for publication.” Appellant’s attorney: Joseph K. Wyckoff, Banks & Brower LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Hoagland Family Limited Partnership v. Town of Clear Lake
Nos. 25A-PL-1361, 25A-PL-3170

Appeal from the Steuben Circuit Court, Special Judge William R. Walz IV. The court affirmed the trial court’s orders addressing various aspects of Hoagland’s ongoing litigation regarding connection to the town’s sewer system, including the denial of Hoagland’s motion to amend its answer, the judgment of $512,623.52 against Hoagland, the award of $60,076.49 in attorneys’ fees and the award of appellate attorneys’ fees to the town, and the nunc pro tunc order clarifying the contempt finding and a related $19,920 judgment against Hoagland. The court determined that no abuse of discretion or error occurred in the trial court’s rulings and emphasized the need for the parties to resolve their differences after nearly 20 years of back-and-forth. Judge Felix authored the opinion, with Judges May and Mathias concurring. Appellant’s attorney: Michael H. Michmerhuizen, Barrett McNagny LLP, Fort Wayne, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Mark J. Crandley, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana.

This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.