Sept. 15, 2026

Indiana Court of Appeals

Craig Robert Hendry v. State of Indiana 

No. 26A-CR-33 

Appeal from Greene Superior Court, Judge Dena A. Martin. Hendry was charged with Class B misdemeanor false informing after making allegations about police officers during a Linton City Council meeting. He claimed the officers had unlawfully entered his home and imprisoned him, but the trial court denied his motion to dismiss, ruling the False Informing Statute constitutional as applied to him. Hendry appealed, claiming his comments were constitutionally protected speech and also raised issues not presented in the trial court, where he represented himself. The appeals court affirmed the lower court decision, concluding that his statements constituted false assertions of fact—rather than protected hyperbole—and that the statute provided adequate notice of prohibited conduct without being unconstitutionally vague. Judge Weissmann authored the opinion, with Judges Bailey and Brown concurring. Appellant attorney: Alexander W. Robbins, Ahler & Robbins LLP, Lafayette. Appellee’s attorney: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.  Attorney for amicus curiae, ACLU of Indiana: Joshua T. Bleisch, Indianapolis.

Indiana Court of Appeals

A.A. v. Richmond State Hospital
No. 26A-MH-342 

Appeal from Marion Superior Court, Judge David Certo. Appellant identified as “A.A.” appeals the continuation of his regular commitment, arguing that the trial court erred in holding his review hearing remotely and that the evidence is insufficient to establish that he was “gravely disabled” at the time of the hearing. The appeals court found that while the trial court’s decision to conduct the hearing remotely did not meet the standard of good cause, the error was harmless as A.A. actively participated. The evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that A.A. was gravely disabled due to his schizophrenia and refusal to take medication, thereby supporting his continued commitment. However, the court reversed part of the trial court’s commitment order regarding findings of stimulant-use and cannabis-use disorders, determining that such findings were not supported by evidence. Judge Vaidik authored the opinion, with Judges Altice and Foley concurring. Attorney for appellant: Casey Farrington, Marion County Public Defender Agency. Attorney for appellee: 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.