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 Bruce Cole v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-1996
Criminal. Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court, Judge Steven P. Meyer. Affirms Cole’s conviction for Level 4 felony child molesting and habitual offender enhancement. Holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the victim’s forensic interview under the Protected Person Statute after finding the victim was unavailable due to serious emotional distress that would prevent him from reasonably communicating if required to testify in Cole’s presence; the court also concludes Cole waived his specific challenge to the unavailability finding by failing to raise it at trial. Chief Judge Tavitas authored the opinion. Judges Weissmann and Foley concur. Appellant’s attorney: Bruce W. Graham, Graham Law Firm P.C., Lafayette, Indiana. Appellee’s attorneys: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Eric Vonderheide v. Carrie Weisman-Vonderheide
No. 25A-DC-1943
Domestic relations. Interlocutory appeal from the Dubois Superior Court, Judge Anthony D. Quinn. Dismisses the appeal without prejudice for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Holds the trial court’s arrearage order identifying the amount Husband owed under the dissolution agreement was not a final judgment and did not qualify as an appealable interlocutory order under Indiana Appellate Rule 14(A)(1) because it did not require the payment of money prior to final judgment, but merely identified a debt; the court clarifies that Rule 14(A)(1) applies only to orders that compel the surrender of money akin to a final judgment before final resolution of the case. Judge Mathias authored the opinion. Judge Pyle concurs. Judge Vaidik dissents, concluding the trial court’s order was a final judgment because it resolved both enforcement of the dissolution agreement and denied Wife’s request for attorney’s fees, thereby disposing of all issues. She disagrees with the majority’s characterization of the order as interlocutory and argues no issues remained pending despite the scheduled show-cause hearing. Vaidik would find appellate jurisdiction proper and reach the merits of Husband’s appeal. Appellant’s attorney: John E. Birk, Huntingburg, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Patrick J. Smith, Smith Law Office, Bedford, 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.