Court opinions

United States Court of Appeals
USA vs. Jonathan S. Rose
No. 24-1086

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge Holly A. Brady. Before Circuit Judges Easterbrook, Kirsch and Pryor. The court vacated the district court’s order dismissing charges against Rose under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(4) and remanded the case for further proceedings. The district court concluded that a historical context for §922(g)(4) was insufficient to apply a lifetime prohibition on firearm possession to those who have been committed for mental health reasons but are no longer deemed dangerous. The district court also emphasized the necessity for a detailed record regarding Rose’s mental state and the conditions of his prior commitment and release. It noted that determinations on current dangerousness must be made based on individualized proof, allowing both Rose and the prosecution to present evidence in light of recent rulings. Judge Easterbrook authored the opinion.

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

The following opinions were published on June 30 after The Indiana Lawyer’s deadline. 

Indiana Supreme Court
State of Indiana v. Augustine Armando Gomez Jr.
No. 25S-CR-14

Direct appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court, Judge Randy J. Williams. The trial court’s dismissal of misdemeanor and felony unlawful carrying charges against Gomez, based on alleged misapplication of statutory provisions regarding prior felony convictions, was reversed. The Supreme Court held that the trial court incorrectly found the charging information lacked sufficient certainty and erred in declaring the relevant statutes unconstitutional. The court confirmed that Gomez had adequate notice regarding the crimes charged and thus reinstated the charges. Justice Massa authored the opinion. Justice Slaughter concurred, Justice Molter concurred in result, and Chief Justice Rush partially concurred and dissented in part with a separate opinion, joined by Justice Goff. Chief Justice Rush concluded the handgun statute required the state to show Gomez’s Illinois conviction was substantially similar to an Indiana felony before it could support the Level 5 felony enhancement, and that the charging information failed to identify the necessary Indiana comparator. She would have allowed the misdemeanor handgun charge to proceed but would have affirmed dismissal of the Level 5 felony charge and resolved the case on statutory, rather than constitutional, grounds. Appellant’s attorney: Office of the Indiana Attorney General. Appellee’s attorney: Shay J. Hughes, Lafayette, Indiana.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Barry Dircks v. Joseph Delamater and Razumich & Delamater, P.C.
No. 25A-CT-932

Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Judge Timothy W. Oakes. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding no attorney-client relationship existed between Barry Dircks and Joseph Delamater beyond an emergency intervention during a standoff. The court determined that even if such a relationship had existed, Delamater’s actions did not proximately cause Dircks’ damages, as the decision to detain Dircks’ children was already in motion before Delamater’s involvement, and ultimately Dircks’ own actions led to further complications. Chief Judge Tavitas authored the opinion, with Judge Bailey concurring and Judge Kenworthy dissenting, believing genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the legal malpractice claim — including whether there was an assumed, ongoing attorney-client relationship beyond the standoff. Appellant appeared pro se. Appellees’ attorney: Vincent P. Antaki, Reminger Co. LPA, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Ed Carpenter Racing, LLC v. Milton “Todd” Ault, III, and VForward2, LLC
No. 25A-CC-2721

Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Judge Kurt Eisgruber. Ed Carpenter Racing, LLC appeals the dismissal of its complaint for damages against Milton “Todd” Ault, III, and VForward2, LLC. The court affirms the dismissal of the complaint against Ault for lack of personal jurisdiction but reverses the dismissal with prejudice, remanding for a dismissal without prejudice. The court finds Ed Carpenter Racing failed to establish personal jurisdiction over Ault. In addition, the court upholds the dismissal against VForward2 for failure to state a claim, allowing Ed Carpenter Racing an opportunity to amend its complaint. Senior Judge Crone authored the opinion, and Judges Mathias and Pyle concur. Appellant’s attorney: Richard B. Kaufman, Indianapolis, Indiana. Appellees’ attorneys: Jeffrey M. Heinzmann, Heinzmann Law Office LLC, Fishers, Indiana; and Robert B. Volynsky, Weltz Kakos Gerbi Wolinetz Volynsky LLP, Carle Place, New York.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
John H. Murphy v. The City of South Bend
No. 26A-CT-94

Appeal from the St. Joseph Circuit Court, Special Judge Jenny Pitts Manier. John Murphy fell and injured his leg during a parade, claiming the city’s negligence in maintaining the road created a pothole that caused his fall. The city sought summary judgment, asserting immunity under Indiana law for discretionary functions related to road maintenance. The trial court granted this motion, but the appellate court reversed, stating the city did not provide sufficient evidence to prove its entitlement to immunity. It concluded that the pothole repair process did not clearly constitute a policy-oriented decision-making process, and therefore, the city is not immune from liability for Murphy’s negligence claim. The court remands for further proceedings. Judge Felix authored the opinion, with Judges Weissmann and DeBoer concurring. Appellant’s attorneys: Edward J. Chester, Laura L. Ezzell and J. Thomas Vetne, Chester Law Office, Elkhart, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Elizabeth A. Klesmith, THK Law LLP, South Bend, Indiana.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Douglas Hicks v. Rebecca Hicks
No. 25A-DC-2054

Appeal from the Wayne Circuit Court, Judge April R. Drake. Douglas Hicks appeals the trial court’s dissolution of his marriage to Rebecca Hicks, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the marital estate. The court found that the division was inequitable, as it awarded a slight advantage to husband based solely on income disparities, failing to address all statutory factors for such a division. The appellate court ruled that the trial court’s plan for handling the marital residence, contingent on its sale, would result in the husband receiving only 4% of the marital estate if sold, which the appellate court found to be clearly erroneous. The appellate court thus reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Chief Judge Tavitas authored the opinion, with Judges Weissmann and Foley concurring. Appellant’s attorneys: Alexander N. Moseley and Adrian Deneen, Dixon & Moseley P.C., Indianapolis, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Christopher T. Armour, BBFCS Attorneys, Richmond, Indiana.

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

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

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Erica Anders, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
No. 25A-CR-3171

Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Magistrate Matthew E. Symons and Judge Helen W. Marchal. Erica Anders was found guilty of battery resulting in bodily injury. On appeal, Anders contended there was a material variance between the charging information and the evidence presented at trial, asserting that this variance prejudiced her defense. The court disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s decision, concluding that the specific terms used in the charge were surplusage and did not affect the charge’s validity. The court found no material variance because Anders had sufficient notice of the charges to prepare her defense, which did not rely on the precise nature of the alleged touching. Chief Judge Tavitas authored the opinion, with Judges Bradford and Felix concurring. Appellant’s attorney: Steven J. Halbert, 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.

The following opinion was published on June 18 after The Indiana Lawyer’s deadline. 

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Tushawn Craig, et al., v. City of Richmond, Indiana
No. 26-1864

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Judge Matthew P. Brookman. The court affirmed the district court’s order to remand the case to state court, concluding that the local event or occurrence exception to the Class Action Fairness Act is jurisdictional. The court found all claims arose from a single event — an industrial facility fire in Richmond, Indiana — which satisfies the exception as it resulted in injuries within the state. Chief Judge Brennan authored the opinion. No concurrences or dissents were noted.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Antonio Ferguson v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-608

Appeal from the Wayne Superior Court No. 1, Judge Ronald J. Moore. Antonio Ferguson appeals his conviction for Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting the methamphetamine evidence obtained during a traffic stop, claiming it violated his constitutional rights. The state cross-argues on waiver grounds, asserting that Ferguson did not properly object to the evidence. The court concludes that Ferguson’s right to appeal was preserved despite procedural nuances, and it finds no violation of either the Fourth Amendment or Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution during the search. The court affirms Ferguson’s conviction. Judge May authored the opinion, and Judges Weissmann and DeBoer concur. Appellant’s attorney: Nathaniel S. Connor, The Law Office of Nathaniel S. Connor LLC, Winchester, 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.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Andrew T. Masterson v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-2176

Appeal from the Martin Circuit Court, Judge Isha E. Wright-Ryan. Affirms trial court’s ruling. The appellate court determined that Masterson violated the conditions of his community-corrections placement due to his discharge from a recovery program, despite questioning the credibility of the program’s director and ruling that the discharge was not Masterson’s fault. The judgment aligns with precedents stating that responsibility for compliance rests with the probationer, and circumstances surrounding the violation are only relevant for determining a sanction. Judge Vaidik authored the opinion, with Judges Bailey and Scheele concurring. Appellant’s attorneys: Robert T. Miles, Justin W. Roberts and David J. Noetzel, certified legal intern, Kolb Roellgen & Traylor LLP, Vincennes, 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.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Estate of William C. Bugher (Deceased), Elnor Bugher, Appellant-Respondent v. William Mark Bugher and Robert C. Bugher, In Their Capacities as Co-Personal Representatives Herein, Appellees-Petitioners
No. 25A-EU-2826

Appeal from the Gibson Circuit Court, Special Judge Greg A. Granger. Elnor Bugher appeals the trial court’s judgment favoring William Mark and Robert C. Bugher in their capacities as personal representatives of the estate of William C. Bugher. The court reversed and remanded, determining that upon William’s death, the funds in joint accounts and the residential parcel belonged solely to Elnor, not the Estate. The court ruled that Mark and Robert failed to timely file a claim under the Nonprobate Transferees Act, which contributed to the decision to vacate the previous judgment and the order for attorney fees. Judge Brown authored the opinion, with Judges Altice and DeBoer concurring. Appellant’s attorneys: Todd I. Glass and Savannah L. Mundy, Fine & Hatfield, A Professional Corp., Evansville, Indiana. Appellees’ attorneys: Maurice E. Doll and Aaron D. Doll, Doll & Sievers Attorneys at Law LLC, Vincennes, Indiana.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
In re the Supervised Estate of Robert Thompson, Deceased, Tammi Stodghill, Appellant-Respondent v. Bradley Thompson as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert Thompson, Appellee-Petitioner
No. 25A-ES-1629

Appeal from the Grant Superior Court, Judge Jason McVicker. The trial court found that Michael Thompson’s transfers of properties from his father Robert’s estate to Tammi Stodghill were fraudulent, aimed at depriving beneficiaries of their rightful shares. Stodghill’s appeals contest the trial court’s findings regarding her absence at the initial hearing, the exclusion of certain evidence, and the refusal to compel a witness to testify. The court affirmed the trial court’s decisions, stating that Stodghill had sufficient opportunity to present her arguments and evidence at a subsequent hearing, and that the trial court appropriately excluded the evidence under governing legal standards. Judge Felix authored the opinion, with Judges May and Mathias concurring. Appellant’s attorney: David M. Payne, Marion, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Paul R. Sadler, Emswiller, Williams, Noland & Clarke LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael Turi v. J.R., a Minor b/n/f Stacy Rheinlander
No. 25A-PL-2858

Appeal from the Vanderburgh Superior Court, Judge Jillian Kratochvil. J.R., by next friend Stacy Rheinlander, filed a complaint against Michael Turi, alleging they “suffered substantial and significant injuries” via lead exposure while living at a rental property owned by Turi. Turi failed to answer the complaint and did not appear at a subsequent damages hearing, and the trial court entered a judgment against him in the amount of $500,000. Here, Turi appeals the denial of his motion for relief from judgment, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion in its ruling. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, concluding that Turi was adequately served and that his reasons for failing to respond did not constitute excusable neglect. On cross-appeal, J.R. sought damages pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 66(E), but the court declined to award these, finding the violations by Turi’s counsel did not rise to the level of bad faith required for such sanctions. Judge May authored the opinion, with Judges Mathias and Felix concurring.

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

The following opinion was issued on June 9 after The Indiana Lawyer’s deadline.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
USA v. Frank Washington III
No. 25-2379

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge James T. Moody. Before Ripple, Kolar and Maldonado. Defendant Frank Washington III appeals his 70-month sentence for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, arguing that the district court did not adequately explain its decision. The court acknowledged Washington’s documented health concerns but failed to provide an individualized assessment of factors related to his sentence duration. As the court’s explanation was insufficient for meaningful appellate review, the panel vacated Washington’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. The opinion was authored per curiam.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Joshua Blair v. Amber Fields (Blair)
No. 26A-DC-27

Appeal from the Johnson Superior Court, Judge Marla K. Clark. The Court affirms the trial court’s order that granted a petition to modify custody and parenting time, awarding primary physical custody to Amber Fields. The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Joshua Blair’s motion for a continuance, finding it would not serve the best interests of the children. Additionally, the Court upheld the trial court’s reliance on the Guardian Ad Litem’s report and testimony, noting that there had been a substantial change in the children’s circumstances that supported the custody modification. Chief Judge Tavitas authored the opinion, with Judges Bradford and Felix concurring. Appellant’s attorney: Denise F. Hayden, Lacy Law Office, Indianapolis, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Michael R. Auger, Franklin, Indiana.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Mykal J. A. Gerou, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
No. 25A-CR-2601

Appeal from the Jefferson Superior Court, Judge Blaine S. Goode. Mykal Gerou was convicted of five counts of intimidation for threats made against various individuals, resulting in a 12-year sentence with one year suspended to probation. The court affirmed the conviction for threats against a psychotherapist, ruling sufficient evidence supported the charge, but reversed the Level 5 felony convictions for threats against Department of Child Services employees, determining they did not constitute terrorism as defined by law. The case was remanded for reclassification of those charges as Class A misdemeanors with appropriate sentencing. Judge Felix authored the opinion with Judges May and Mathias concurring. Appellant’s attorney: R. Patrick Magrath, West Sixth Law LLP, Madison, 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.

The following opinion was issued on June 3 after The Indiana Lawyer’s deadline. 

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
USA v. Maurice Whitesides
No. 24-2999

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Judge James R. Sweeney II. The court affirms the district court’s application of a two-level drug-premises enhancement during sentencing, finding the evidence supported that drug distribution was among the primary uses of Whitesides’ residence. The court further held that minor factual inaccuracies cited by Whitesides were harmless and did not impact his sentencing. Judge Kirsch authored the opinion.

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

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Nicholas S. Wemes v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-2491

Appeal from the Delaware Circuit Court, Judge Thomas A. Cannon. Nicholas S. Wemes was charged with Level 4 felony causing death when operating a vehicle with a controlled substance in his blood and Level 5 felony reckless homicide after toxicology tests indicated the presence of THC, the component in marijuana that produces the effect of a “high.” Wemes filed motions to suppress evidence, arguing that Indiana laws conflict with federal law, and that proof of impairment and marijuana source was necessary for his charges; these motions were denied. The court affirmed the trial court’s rulings, clarifying that Indiana law does not require proof of impairment for driving with THC in the blood and does not differentiate between substances based on legality. Judge Scheele authored the opinion. Judges Bailey and Vaidik concur. Appellant’s attorney: J. Bart McMahon, Louisville, Kentucky. 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.