March
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a case where the trial court failed to seal an eviction record. In Anderson v. Advantix Development Corporation, the trial court denied Anderson’s request to seal the eviction case once it was dismissed. Anderson appealed this finding. The Court of Appeals compared the Statue that was in place when the eviction suit was filed with the current statute and found that either way Anderson’s eviction record should have been sealed. Anderson met the conditions and filed on her own petition to seal it (which was required in 2022) and under the current statute sealing was required as an action of the court, provided the criteria was met. 25A-EV-1738. (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2026). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
In Shantel Waggoner v. Anonymous Health System, Inc., et al, the Indiana Supreme Court took up the question of whether a trial court can make a preliminary determination of the immunity statute as applied to health care professionals without a medical review panel and whether the providers in this case were in fact immune from civil liability. In this case, a patient was admitted to the provider’s facility for COVID-19 related illness. Patient was immobilized and later developed a bed sore, which ultimately led to an infection and the patient died as a result. This suit arose. The Trial Court and Supreme Court agreed that a preliminary determination can be made without a medical review panel. Because the provides asserted the defense of immunity, they are assuming negligence but denying liability. This meant that the cause of death was not at issue and no medical review is/was required. As to whether the immunity statutes applied, the Court determined that because the patient was admitted to the facility during a time of a declared emergency, and the death was the result of an injury during the care an circumstance developed due to the treatment of COVID-19, the provides fell under various immunity statutes and were not liable. 265-CT-17. (Ind. Mar. 4, 2026). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
The Court of Appeals reverse a conviction for invasion of privacy in French v. State. In this case, the court ordered that French have no contact with a girlfriend while released from custody pending trial. French then called her from the jail several times and was convicted at trial. However, on Appeal, the Court noted that the substance of the trial court’s order rather than the caption governs and the substance stated “while released from custody”. Given the calls were made while in custody the calls were not considered a violation of the protective order. 25A-CR-1906. (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2026). Read the full opinion at public. courts.in.gov/decisions.
Bruce Mendenhall’s conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in Mendenhall v. State. In this case, Mendenhall appealed two main issues arguing lack of territorial jurisdiction and a violation of his Pirtle rights. Mendenhall was stopped in Tennessee and consented to a search of his semi-truck. That search yielded evidence linking him to a murder in Indiana. At trial Mendenhall argued that there was no proof the murder took place in Indiana and that the search violated his rights as the Tennessee officer did not advise him of his right to counsel prior to conduction the search. The Court found that there was sufficient evidence that the act happened in Indiana and did not reverse. Additionally, because the search was conducted in Tennessee and was not done in conjunction with Indiana Law Enforcement, with no knowledge that a crime took place in Indiana at the time of the search, Pirtle was not required. 25A-CR-00775. (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2026). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
In Taylor v. State, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s admittance of testimony given at a deposition and to the officers under the hearsay exception of forfeiture by wrongdoing. In this case, a no contact order was put in place. Taylor continued to contact the protected party where at least half of that contact was urging the witness not to come to court and testify. Because Taylor had intent to silence the witness the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception applied and otherwise inadmissible hearsay is allowed in. However, the Court of Appeals did remand the issue of whether Taylor should be award good time credit earned in custody while awaiting trial. The Trial Court denied him credit on the basis that he violated the no contact order. It was determined that procedure for denying good time credit was not properly conducted and credit should have been applied. 25A-CR-2023. (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2026). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
The issue of joinder was brought up in Davis v. State. In this case, Davis and his co-defendant were tried jointly despite their attempts to have their cases tired separately. The Court of Appeals held that one objection to the joining of the cases was sufficient to preserve the issue on appeal. However, the Court of Appeals ruled that Davis failed to demonstrate abuse of discretion or prejudice. Davis’ conviction was upheld based on text messages, surveillance video and other physical evidence. Finally, the sentence was also upheld due to the extensive criminal history. 25A-CR-622. (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2026). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
Davis’ co-defendant also appealed his case but offered to the Court of Appeals that the Trials Court improperly admitted the surveillance video in Rodriguez Jr. v. State. Rodriguez Jr. had objected originally to the video coming in. However, when the video was submitted to actually be admitted into evidence, Rodriguez stated there was no objection to allowing it in and therefore waived the appeal issue. 25A-CR-623. (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2026). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions
The State took up an issue of allowing previous allegations to be admitted at trial in an interlocutory appeal in State v. Watson. The Trial Court ruled that previous allegations made by this witness were admissible. However, the State appealed arguing that in order for the prior allegations to be allowed, Watson must show that the prior incidents were either admitted false by the witness or shown to be demonstrably false. Since Watson did neither, the burden was not met and the prior incidents should not be allowed. The Court of Appeals sided with the State and remanded the case back to the Trial Court with instructions. 25A-C5-1789 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2026). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions
In Norris v. Norris, the Indiana Supreme Court discussed the importance of waiting for an opinion to be certified. In this case, the trial court found one of the parties in contempt of a court order but declined to award the other party damages as there was not enough evidence to support the nexus of the speculative damages requested. The issue was taken up on appeal and the Appellate Court reversed instructing the trial court to award damages. The trial court issued an order prior to the Appellate Court’s opinion being certified, prior to the party’s opportunity to file for review. When the party did file for review from the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court found that the trial court’s original order was not made in error and should have been upheld. 255-DR-226 (Ind., Mar. 12, 2023). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
A Circuit Court Judge was banned from judicial practice and reprimanded from the Matter of Cox. The Indiana Supreme Court determined that this judge violated Rules of Judicial Conduct of promoting confidence in judiciary, impartiality and fairness, ensuring the right to be heard and ex parte provisions. The actions that lead to this decision were that the judge went to a defendant’s house unannounced and spoke with the defendant and his parents about issues pending before the court. The judge then used that conversation as a basis to deny a request made. The Indiana Supreme Court believed that the severe sanction was warranted as there were prior disciplinary actions and the judge continued to deny wrongdoing. 255-JD-80 (Ind., Mar. 19, 2026). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
The Indiana Supreme Court determined Moyers sentence to have violated double jeopardy in Moyers v. State. In the case, Moyers was convicted of two counts and sentenced separately on them On transfer the Supreme Court stated that because the higher level felony was an enhanced version of the other count with the same base offense the Powell test was to be applied over the Wadle test. The lesson included count should have been vacated. 255-CR-86 (Ind. Mar. 20, 2026). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
The Indiana Appellette Court upheld a trial court’s ruling on a probation violation in Davis v. State. Davis appealed decisions that he had waived his right to counsel during the probation proceedings and that the sentence was improper. The Appellette Court found that because Davis had persistently and deliberately sabotaged every relationship with counsel even after being warned that he did waive his right to counsel. Additionally the sentence was found to be proper as it was within the discretion of the Court. 25A-Cr-1132. (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2026). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
In the Matter of D.S., the Appellette Court had to consider whether a wardship has the same authorization as a legal guardianship. The Appellette Court determined it does not. D.S. was deemed to need services and sent to the State hospital. However, D.S. did not agree to this and appealed the decision. The Appellette Court found that a higher standard should have been applied in order to preserve due process rights and remanded the case for civil commitment proceedings. 25A-JC-1881. (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2026). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
The Indiana Supreme Court took up an issue concerning breach of contract, attorney’s fees and administrative remedies in Indiana Compensation Rating Bureau and Indiana Department of Insurance v. Technology Insurance Company. In this case, Technology had provided worker’s compensation under a contractual assigned risk plan with the Bureau. Technology settled their claim and requested reimbursement from the Bureau. The Bureau declined to repay Technology so a suit ensued. The ALJ judge found in favor of Technology and awarded them their repayment plus fees and interest. The Bureau appealed and it made it way up to the Supreme Court. The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that there was a breach of contract made by the Bureau, that while there was a provision to exhaust administrative remedies, that was done buy the 5 year litigation with the ALJ. The only other issue was whether the fees had been correctly calculated given the procedure that was required. The case was remanded for re-calculation. 265-PL-83 (Ind. Mar. 23, 2026). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
In Olbera, et al. v. Skyes, the Indiana Court of Appeals looked at how the martial presumption and whether it was rebutted by the biological father. In this case, a throuple got pregnant. Two of the members sought counsel and decided to marry prior to the child’s birth. They later filed for divorce and the biological father sought to establish paternity. The biological father continued to live with the other two members, came to the birth itself, gave his last name as part of the child’s last name, and indicated to the trial court that he wanted to remain in the child’s life. The Court of Appeals found that while there is a marital presumption, the child was conceived by the biological father and one of the mothers prior to the marriage and that the father had shown by clear, convincing, direct evidence that he maintained a role in the child’s life and thus was entitled to paternal rights. 25A-JP-2005 (Int. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2026). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
Cole v. State addressed a question of being present in trial for confrontation. During preparation for trial the complaining witness had to meet with the prosecutor and discuss the charges against Cole and relive the trauma caused by the incident. The State moved and was granted the ability to play the complaining witness’s forensic interview rather than testify during trial due to the emotional distress the complaining witness was having to face Cole. Cole challenged this at trial and on appeal claiming that the State failed to show that the trauma was caused by having to face Cole rather than by other past trauma. The Court of Appeals clarified that the plain language does not require that all of the complaining witness’ emotional distress be cause solely by Cole’s presence. 25A-CR-1996 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2026). Read the full opinion at public.court.in.gov/decisions.
Fowler challenged whether the trial court properly admitted Fowler’s statements in Fowler v. State. In this case, the trial court allowed Facebook messages sent from a witness to Fowler to be admitted at trial under the adoptive admissions doctrine. The message contained content that Fowler knew a certain fact which was necessary to prove the allegation. In the messages, Fowler admitted the fact, apologized and did not make any other comments indicating that Fowler was not aware of the fact. Because the content that Fowler sent back indicated that the fact was true, the statements Fowler made (or didn’t dispute) were accepted as Fowler adopting the fact and admitting to it. 25A-CR-1910 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2026). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a conviction which totaled 60 years in the aggregate in Searcy v. State. In this case, multiple allegations of possession were alleged ranging from January – December of 2014. Searcy was convicted of ten counts and the trial court sentenced Searcy to a total of 60 years, the counts running consecutive. Searcy challenged on sufficiency of the evidence as well as arguing that the 10 offenses constituted a single episode of criminal conduct. The Court of Appeals found that possession is an ongoing endeavor and does require the item to be immediately usable. Searcy admitted the item was his and directed police to it. As for the sentence, the Court of Appeals determined that because there was different actions taken on each day the contraband was collected it was not a single criminal conduct and upheld the aggregate sentence. 25A-CR-298. (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2026). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
A probation revocation appeal was procedurally addressed in Chandler v. State. In this case, Chandler was found in violation of probation and mentioned to counsel that Chandler wanted to appeal. However, the attorney did not hear Chandler and was not made aware of the request until the last day eligible to file a notice of appeal. A belated appeal was filed and initially rejected the belated appeal because post-conviction rule 2 does not apply to belated appeals. The Court did however determine that there were extraordinary compelling reasons under case law to allow the belated appeal to continue. The Court of Appeals remanded with instruction to the trial court to permit the filing. 25A-CR-2553 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2026). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.