Opinions

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.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Christian Q. White v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-959

Appeal from the Clark Circuit Court, Judge Nicholas A. Karaffa. Christian Q. White appeals his convictions for murder and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, asserting that retrial after a mistrial violated double jeopardy protections, and that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing by not identifying mitigating factors. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss, stating White impliedly consented to the mistrial by failing to object and had no grounds for a double jeopardy claim. The court also found no abuse of discretion in sentencing, determining that the sentence was appropriate considering the nature of the offense and White’s criminal history. Judge Altice authored the opinion, with Judge Brown concurring and Judge DeBoer dissenting with a separate opinion. DeBoer finds that the decision to try White twice after his first jury trial ended in a mistrial did violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. She wrote that she would reverse convictions for murder and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. Appellant’s attorney: Christopher Sturgeon, Jeffersonville, 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.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Devante Shakur Foster v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-325

Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Judge Angela Dow Davis. Following a jury trial, Devante Foster was convicted of multiple offenses including armed robbery and kidnapping stemming from robberies of two armored vehicles. The court affirmed Foster’s convictions for armed robbery but remanded the case to the trial court to reverse his theft, kidnapping and criminal confinement convictions, citing substantive double jeopardy concerns since the acts constituted a single transaction. The court also found that while there was prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, it did not rise to the level of fundamental error. Foster’s constitutional rights regarding cross-examination were not violated, as the trial court acted within its discretion to limit questions that could elicit perjury. Chief Judge Tavitas authored the opinion, with Judges Kenworthy and DeBoer concurring. Appellant’s attorney: Sarah Medlin, Marion County Public Defender Agency, Appellate Division, 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.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Michael Cline and Jacob Sofronko, Appellants-Plaintiffs v. Everest National Insurance Company, Appellee-Defendant
No. 25A-CT-1976

Appeal from the Jay Superior Court, Judge Gail M. Dues. The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of Everest National Insurance Company, determining that the maximum underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage available to Michael Cline and Jacob Sofronko is $700,000 after a setoff for the $300,000 payment from the tortfeasor’s insurance. The court found no genuine issue of material fact, agreeing with the trial court’s interpretation of the UIM policy, which states that UIM coverage limits are reduced by any amounts paid by those legally responsible for the accident. Judge Kenworthy authored the opinion, with Judges Bradford and Pyle concurring. Attorneys for appellant (Cline): Jason A. Shartzer, Shannon B. Mize, Shartzer Law Firm LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana. Appellee’s attorneys: Pamela A. Paige, Plunket Cooney PC, Indianapolis, Indiana; and Stephen P. Brown, Plunket Cooney PC, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.

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

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Clifford Vance v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-1741

Appeal from the Clark Circuit Court, Judge Bradley Jacobs. Clifford Vance appealed his convictions for drug-related offenses, arguing that the officers’ entry into and search of his motel room violated his rights under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. The Court agreed, emphasizing that the officers’ degree of concern was low, the intrusion was moderate to high, and the law enforcement need was modest. The Court found that the State failed to demonstrate the reasonableness of the search, concluding that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence found, and ultimately reversed Vance’s convictions. Judge Vaidik authored the opinion, with Judge DeBoer concurring and Chief Judge Tavitas concurring in result with a separate opinion. Appellant’s attorney: Matthew J. McGovern, Fishers, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Town of Macy, Indiana, Appellant-Plaintiff v. Nyona South Mud Lake Conservancy District, Appellee-Defendant
No. 25A-PL-2583

Appeal from the Fulton Superior Court, Judge Gregory L. Heller. Finds the trial court erred by sua sponte ordering the parties to arbitration regarding their wastewater treatment agreement. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order and remanded with instructions, emphasizing that both parties had waived their right to enforce the Arbitration Provision by choosing to litigate in a trial court. Judge Felix authored the opinion, with Judges May and Mathias concurring. Appellant’s attorney: Bryce Runkle, Peru, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Joseph W. Eddingfield, Wabash, Indiana.

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

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Betty A. Leon, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
No. 25A-CR-2182

Appeal from the Huntington Superior Court, Judge Jennifer E. Newton. Betty A. Leon appeals her convictions for several drug-related charges, including Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine. The court reverses her conviction for Level 6 felony unlawful possession or use of a legend drug due to insufficient evidence that the pill in question was Cyclobenzaprine. However, the court affirms her 26-year sentence, determining it is not inappropriate given the nature of her offenses, including the large quantity of methamphetamine possessed and her extensive criminal history. Judge May authored the opinion, with Judges Mathias and Felix concurring. Appellant’s attorney: Cara Schaefer Wieneke, Wieneke Law Office, LLC, Brooklyn, 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 Supreme Court
Carlos T. Ortiz v. State of Indiana
No. 25S-CR-303

Appeal from the Elkhart Circuit Court, Judge Michael A. Christofeno. Carlos T. Ortiz sought to bring a belated appeal after pleading guilty to murder, arguing that an improper aggravator was used during sentencing. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Ortiz’s petition for belated appeal, ruling that he was not an “eligible defendant” because he waived his right to appeal under the plea agreement and did not assert that his sentence was illegal as defined in prior case law. The dismissal was modified to be without prejudice. Justice Slaughter authored the opinion, with Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa and Molter concurring, while Justice Goff concurred with a separate opinion. Attorneys for appellant: Amy E. Karozos, public defender; Archer “Randy” Rose Jr. and Emily L. Hopp, deputy state public defenders. Appellee’s attorneys: 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.