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
State of Indiana v. David E. Watson
No. 25A-CR-1789
Criminal. Interlocutory appeal from the Perry Circuit Court, Judge M. Lucy Goffinet. Reverses the trial court’s order allowing evidence of the alleged victim’s prior accusations of sexual misconduct and remands for further proceedings. Holds the trial court clearly erred because the alleged victim did not admit her prior accusations were false and there was no evidence demonstrating they were demonstrably false, which is required for admissibility under the common-law exception to Indiana’s Rape Shield Rule; the court further concludes that credibility determinations alone are insufficient to establish falsity and that the absence of corroborating evidence does not render prior accusations demonstrably false. Senior Judge Najam authored the opinion. Judges Vaidik and Scheele concur. Appellant’s attorneys: Office of the Indiana Attorney General. Appellee’s attorney: Walter R. Hagedorn, II, Tell City, Indiana.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Demarcus Solvontez Davis v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-622
Criminal. Appeal from the Madison Circuit Court, Judge Angela Warner Sims. Affirms Davis’s convictions for murder and Level 3 felony robbery and his 96-year sentence. Holds Davis preserved appellate review of the trial court’s joinder decision by objecting to the State’s motion, but failed to demonstrate either an abuse of discretion or resulting prejudice, and further concludes the trial court did not err in denying his Batson challenge, no fundamental error occurred in the prosecutor’s rebuttal argument, and sufficient evidence supported the convictions, including text messages planning a robbery, surveillance video and physical evidence; the court also concludes Davis’s sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Judge Mathias authored the opinion. Judges Vaidik and Pyle concur. Appellant’s attorney: Joshua Cumming, SDHMR Law Group, Noblesville, Indiana. Appellee’s attorneys: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Roger Rodriguez, Jr. v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-623
Criminal. Appeal from the Madison Circuit Court, Judge Angela Warner Sims. Affirms Rodriguez’s convictions for murder and Level 3 felony robbery. Holds Rodriguez waived appellate review of his evidentiary challenge by affirmatively stating he had no objection when the video evidence was admitted, despite a prior objection, and clarifies that under Indiana Evidence Rule 103 a defendant preserves an objection by timely objecting and obtaining a definitive ruling without needing “magic language,” but may still waive the issue by later disclaiming an objection; the court also concludes the trial court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on self-defense, finding the added language accurately stated the law and was not confusing or redundant. Judge Mathias authored the opinion. Judges Vaidik and Pyle concur. Appellant’s attorney: Paul J. Podlejski, Anderson, Indiana. Appellee’s attorneys: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.
This opinion was issued on March 17 after The Indiana Lawyer’s deadline.
Indiana Supreme Court
Indiana Compensation Rating Bureau v. Technology Insurance Company
No. 26S-PL-83
Civil. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Judge James A. Joven. Affirms the trial court’s judgment granting Technology Insurance Company’s petition for judicial review and remands with instructions for the trial court to calculate and award prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and expenses. Holds the company was entitled to fees, interest and expenses under the governing agreements after the Bureau breached its reimbursement obligations, and that the company satisfied any requirement to exhaust administrative remedies by pursuing its underlying reimbursement claim through the Bureau, its governing board and the Department of Insurance; also concludes the Department’s failure to rule on the company’s fee requests constituted a final agency action subject to judicial review, and the company was not required to return to the Bureau to seek relief on collateral fee claims. Justice Slaughter authored the opinion. Justices Massa, Goff and Molter concur. Chief Justice Rush concurs in part and dissents in part with separate opinion. She concurred that Technology Insurance Company is entitled to prejudgment interest, attorney fees and expenses, and agreed that the company satisfied the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies and could seek judicial review based on the Department’s inaction. She further agreed the company was not required to return to the Bureau to pursue its fee claims, emphasizing that the administrative proceedings before the Department were de novo, meaning all issues could be resolved at that stage. However, she disagreed with the majority’s remedy, concluding the case should be remanded to the Department — not the trial court — to calculate and award fees. She would have affirmed the trial court’s order directing the Department to act rather than transferring that responsibility to the court. Appellant’s attorney: E. Scott Treadway, EST Law, LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana. Appellee’s attorneys: Maggie L. Smith, FBT Gibbons LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana, Linda L. Pence, Suzannah Wilson Overholt, Amundsen Davis LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana.
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.