May 4, 2026

  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Leslie Tomic v. Christopher M. Vanduyne
No. 25A-DC-2458

Appeal from the Marshall Circuit Court, Judge Janette E. Surrisi. Leslie Tomic appeals the trial court’s order denying her request to modify legal custody of the minor child she shares with Christopher M. Vanduyne. The court affirmed its previous joint legal custody arrangement, noting that both parties struggled with effective communication and disputes about the child’s counseling. The court found that Tomic’s motion for sole legal custody lacked sufficient evidence of a substantial change in circumstances and determined that it was in the child’s best interest to maintain joint custody despite the ongoing challenges. Judge Brown authored the opinion, with Judges Altice and DeBoer concurring. Appellant’s attorney: Rebecca M. Collins, Law Office of Rebecca M. Collins, Inc., Plymouth, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Alexander L. Hoover, Alexander L. Hoover & Associates, LLC, Plymouth, Indiana.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
James Easter, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
No. 25A-CR-1229

Appeal from Marion Superior Court, Judge James K. Snyder. James Easter was convicted of multiple crimes, including rape by force and rape by disregarding refusal, after assaulting his ex-girlfriend. He appealed the convictions on the grounds that they constituted substantive double jeopardy. The court found that both rape counts were based on the same act of oral sex, thus applying the framework from a recent Supreme Court decision, which concluded that his dual convictions for rape amounted to a single offense. Additionally, the court determined that his conviction for criminal confinement also violated the double jeopardy doctrine since the State could not demonstrate that the confinement was separate from the force used during the rape. Consequently, the convictions for rape by disregarding refusal and criminal confinement were vacated, and the case was remanded for correction. Judge Weissmann authored the opinion, with Judge Bradford and Judge DeBoer concurring. Appellant’s attorney: Ellen M. O’Connor, Marion County Public Defender Agency, Indianapolis, 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.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Get full access to The Indiana Lawyer! Subscribe Now

Get full access to The Indiana Lawyer! Subscribe Now

Get full access to The Indiana Lawyer! Upgrade Now

Get full access to The Indiana Lawyer! Upgrade Now

Get full access to The Indiana Lawyer!

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In