June 23, 2026

Indiana Supreme Court
In the Matter of Robert James Hardy Jr., Respondent
No. 24S-DI-438

The court suspended Robert James Hardy Jr. from the practice of law for 180 days with automatic reinstatement. The court concluded that Hardy violated multiple professional conduct rules, particularly Rule 8.4(g), by making statements manifesting bias or prejudice while acting in a professional capacity as a chief deputy prosecutor. His conduct included unfounded allegations against a judge and a fellow attorney, damaging reputations and undermining trust in the legal system. Justices Massa, Slaughter, and Molter concurred with Chief Justice Rush’s opinion, while Justice Goff concurred in part and dissented in part, suggesting the suspension should not include automatic reinstatement. Respondent’s attorneys: Dina M. Cox, J. Neal Bowling and Janelle P. Kilies, Lewis Wagner & Trimble, Indianapolis, Indiana. Attorneys for Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission: Adrienne L. Meiring, Stephanie Bibbs and Angie L. Ordway, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Indiana Supreme Court
Marty J. Wilson v. State of Indiana
No. 26S-CR-197

On petition from the Indiana Court of Appeals, appeal from the Lawrence Superior Court, Judge Robert R. Cline. The court affirms the trial court’s denial of Marty J. Wilson’s petition to remove his status as a sexually violent predator, or SVP, and his motion to correct error. The court finds no violation of the ex post facto clause, reasoning that the SVP statute allows for an annual opportunity for offenders to petition for reassessment of their status. The court emphasizes that while meaningful review is necessary, the trial court’s discretion in handling such petitions is acknowledged. Justice Goff authored the opinion, with Chief Justice Rush and Justice Molter concurring. Justice Slaughter concurs in part and in the judgment with a separate opinion in which Justice Massa joins, expressing concerns about the new standard it imposes on trial courts regarding their responsibilities in cases involving SVPs looking to review their statuses. Appellant’s attorney: Cara Schaefer Wieneke, Wieneke Law Office LLC, Brooklyn, Indiana. Appellee’s attorneys: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.

Indiana Court of Appeals
DeJuan Lamar Kelley v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-1454

Appeal from the Monroe Circuit Court, Judge Valeri Haughton. DeJuan Kelley, after facing a mistrial in his first murder trial, was retried and convicted of reckless homicide and carrying a handgun without a license. Kelley appealed, arguing that his retrial violated procedural double jeopardy and that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him. The court affirmed the trial’s judgment, finding that the mistrial was justified by manifest necessity due to defense counsel’s improper remarks, which violated the court’s order in limine against character evidence. The court held that Kelley’s retrial did not violate double jeopardy principles. Additionally, Kelley’s challenge to his sentencing was deemed moot as he had already served his sentence. Chief Judge Tavitas authored the opinion, with Judge Foley concurring and Judge Weissmann dissenting, critiquing the majority’s justification for the mistrial. Appellant’s attorney: Rachel M. Rogers, Monroe County Public Defender, Bloomington, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Office of the Indiana Attorney General

Indiana Court of Appeals
Lydia Theresa Conley v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-PC-2706

Appeal from the Lake Superior Court, Magistrate Kathleen A. Sullivan. Lydia Conley appeals the denial of her post-conviction relief petition. The court finds that while Conley’s trial counsel failed to object to hearsay testimony regarding a threat she allegedly made against Delilah Martinez, this failure did not undermine the confidence in the jury’s verdict given the overwhelming evidence of her guilt, including her motive and actions after the murder. Conley’s claims regarding the admissibility of surveillance videos and a supplemental jury instruction were deemed reasonable, leading to the conclusion that the post-conviction court did not err in denying her petition. Judge Mathias authored the opinion, with Judges Kenworthy and DeBoer concurring. Appellant’s attorney: Amy E. Karozos, Public Defender of Indiana; and Lindsay Van Gorkom, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Office of the Indiana Attorney General

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of: R.M. and A.R. (Minor Children), and M.C. (Mother), Appellant-Respondent v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner
No. 26A-JC-253

Appeal from the Decatur Circuit Court, Judge Timothy B. Day. M.C. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s order adjudicating her minor children, A.R. and R.M., as children in need of services (“CHINS”). The appeals court reversed the CHINS adjudication, concluding that the evidence did not support a finding of serious endangerment or unmet needs requiring state intervention. Specifically, the court found that while both children had been exposed to THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, there was no evidence indicating that the exposure was harmful or that Mother’s situation warranted coercive action by the state. Judge Brown authored the opinion, with Judge Weissmann concurring and Judge Kenworthy dissenting. Judge Kenworthy argued that the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the trial court’s decision, emphasizing the potential risks of continued THC exposure and the need for the court’s intervention. Appellant’s attorney: Amanda O. Blackketter, Blackketter Law LLC, Shelbyville, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.

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