December Cases
In Mapes v. Carroll County. (which was actually on the trial level heard in Tippecanoe Co.) the Appellate Court determined that not only did the trial court properly dismiss the civil suit, but that the trial court should impose whatever restrictions they deem necessary in order to deter Mapes from filing frivolous lawsuits. The Court went on to give Mapes a stern lecture about how they had previously reminded him about filing frivolous lawsuits and clogging up the judicial system back in July and now he had crossed the line. (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
In State v. Bozarth, the Court of Appeals found the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing a case because of a deleted video. The video was dash camera.footage and was simply not saved after the arrest and prior to the officer going on paternity leave. In order to support dismissal for deletion of evidence the evidence must be exculaptory, of such a nature that the Defendant cannot obtain comparable evidence and there must be bad faith. In this case there, the video that was deleted maid not contain exculopatory evidence and was not destroyed in bad faith but rather negligence. (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
In another opinion, the Indiana Court of Appeals found that a parent’s limited testimony where the parent admitted that Court intervention was needed, could not come back and challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court also found that even through the parent made changes, problems were still occurring and intervention was still necessary. In re T.F. and M.F. 25A-JC-1450. (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
In the case In re the Termination of the Partent-Child Relationship of A.W., the Indiana Court of Appeals found that a foster parents information may be discoverable if it leads to admissible evidence during the hearing. Because Indiana Trial Rule 26 allows for a liberal discovery process, not giving admissible evidence or information, is a violation of the parents due process rights. 24A-JT-3052 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2025) short and sweet. Read the full opinion at
The Indiana Court of Appeals found trial counsels assistance was effective in Thies v. State. Thies argued that counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to object to prosecutorial vouching, failed to prepare for cross examination of an expert witness and failed to object to allowing a video interview to be admitted. The Court of Appeals said the failure to object to vouching was tactful in order to not draw attention to the statements and while some of the other evidence could have been objected to, it was not necessary in light of all the overwhelming evidence. 24A-PC-2600 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2025) Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions
In Ward v. State the Court of Appeals considered whether the charged offense of interference with reporting a crime and theft were in violation of double jeopardy. The COA determined there was no violation of double jeopardy. Using the standard from A.W. v. State, the Court found that the third prong failed because the act of taking the phone and ending the 911 call was distinguishable from leaving the apartment with the phone and constituted different acts. As there were two acts it did not violate double jeopardy. 25A-CR-1170 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 9, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in gov/decisions
In Parker v. State, the Court of Appeals upheld a 212 sentence. The Court considered the factors of 1. Nature of the offense and 2. The character of the offender. Based on these factors the Court found the sentence was appropriate. 25A-CR-1068 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2025). Read the full opinion at public courts.in.gov/decisions
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s conviction for driving without ever receiving a license in Rodriguez-Arias v. State. In the case, the trial court reasoned that Mr. Rodriguez-Arias’ Dominican Republic License did not meet the definition of a driver’s license issued by the State of Indiana for an Indiana resident. However, Indiana Code 9-24-1-7(a)(3) provides an exception. The exception applies if the person is a nonresident who is at least 16 years of age, possesses a valid driver’s license from their home state or country, and is legally present in the U.S. As Mr. Rodriguez-Arias met those criteria the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s conviction. 25A-CR-948 (Ind. Ct. App. December 12, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
In the case of In re A.L., the Court of Appeals reversed the termination of parental rights as to Mother but upheld the termination rights as it related to Father. Mother’s rights had been terminated because Mother had been incarcerated throughout the entire proceedings. However, during her incarceration she had participated in parenting classes, obtained her GED, attended peer counseling groups and recovery programing. Because incarnation alone is insufficient to to terminate parental rights, the Court of Appeals reversed the termination as it related to Mother. 25A-JT-663 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2025), Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
In Maxwell v. State, Maxwell raised issues of sufficiency of the evidence on his convictions and double jeopardy violations. Maxwell was charged with multiple counts of Intimidation. He was convicted of them but on appeal he argued that the State failed to prove the two separate acts (1) communicating a threat and (2) drawing or using a a deadly weapon while communicating the threat. The Court of Appeals stated the plain meaning of the phrase “while communicating the threat” suggests an act contemporaneous with the time of the underlying offense. The act of pointing the gun was a threat in and of itself. While the conviction for the level 5 was upheld, the conviction for the lesser included was vacated as it did violate double jeopardy as the two charges the did not permit separate punishments, the charging information was ambiguous about the facts from the lessor included being contained in the lead charge and the actions were so compressed in terms of time, place and singleness of purpose. 25A-CR-103 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
In Garrett v. State, the Court looked at three issues and made rulings that are consistent with each other. The first issue was whether the charges were properly tried together rather than separated. The Court found that because the “spree” was using the same weapon, same car accomplice and they were a series.of acts connected together they were properly joined. Following that logic, the Court of Appeals found that because the 4 different charges of carrying a handgun illegally were part of a single transaction only one conviction was permitted. Finally, the Court of Appeals looked at whether some of the charges were barred by double jeopardy. The Court found they were not as the charges in question had different specific elements which needed different facts to prove. 25A-CR-3060 (Ind. Ct. Apps. Dec. 12, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
In Brooks v. USA Track & Field, Inc., the Indiana Supreme Court reiterated the importance of the finality rule. Brooks filed a lawsuit but did not file a tort claim along with that lawsuit. The trial court found summary judgment in favor of USA Track & Field Inc. Brooks failed to file a motion requesting the final order of summary judgment be vacated or set aside nor did Brooks file a tort claim prior to the final order being issued. Instead, Brooks filed a motion to amend her claim two days after the summary judgment order had been entered. The Supreme Court found that the trial court properly denied Brooks’ motion to amend as there as already a final judgment in place and Trial Rule 15(A) did not apply once the final judgment was issued. (Ind. Dec. 17, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a conviction for failure to make, keep or furnish records because the State failed to prove an essential element of the offense in Spradlin v. State. Spradlin was charged with 40 counts of failure to make, keep or furnish records when she completed the paper form for dispensing medication but failed to complete the electronic documentation that demonstrated the meds were administered to a patient. At trial, the State presented evidence that the electronic documentation was important for patient safety, for facility accountability, that nurses receive training on on proper documentation and that Spradlin knew the facility’s policy regarding documentation. However, the State failed to present evidence to connect the facility’s policy to Article 35-48. In short the State failed to present evidence that the documentation that Spradlin was supposed to do was documentation that was required by law. 24A-CR-1724 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
The Indiana Court of Appeals discussed whether comparative fault applied to intentional torts in Schultz v. Real Estate LLC. The trial court found that Sandy Pines committed the intentional tort of trespass on Schultz’ property but assigned 95% of the blame on Schultz because he purchased a property known to have golf balls landing on the property. However, the comparative fault analysis cannot be applied to intentional torts. Comparative fault is built around relative degrees of causation attributable among the responsible actors. Intentional torts do not fit this model as the liability question isn’t how much action did the each participant cause but rather did the act happen intentionally. If so the proper analysis to apply is the mitigation of damages. Since this was not done by the trial court this case was remanded for the trial court to apply the mitigation of damages analysis. 25A-CT-165 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
In Tandy v. State, the Indiana Appellate Court had to determine if the Trial court errored in allowing a detective to testify as to cell phone cite location information. The detective testified as an explanation of general principles of cell tower technology and plotted carrier provided data on maps to help the jury understand the locations. Because the testimony was based on the detective’s specialized training and not as an expert requiring scientific proof his testimony was considered a skilled witness rather than expert and properly admitted. Even so, if it was wrongly admitted the error was harmless in light of all the other evidence. The other issues was whether the photographs were necessary as pieces of evidence as they contained quite graphic images. The Appellate Court said it was proper because the photographs were necessary to show the trajectory of the bullet. 25A-CR-97 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.court.in.gov/decisions.
The Indiana Court of Appeals had a hard case with Washington v. State. In this case the State charged Washington with two counts. The trial court convicted on both BUT vacated the conviction for count two due to double jeopardy concerns. Count one required causation proof which Washington appealed and said was insufficient. The Court of Appeals agreed. While there was enough to sustain a conviction on count two, because causation was a factor in count one and causation could not be established that conviction was reversed and remanded with instruction. 25A-CR-1169. (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
In Johnson v. State, the Appellate Court determined that Johnson’s right to face to face confrontation was violated when the trial court allowed a pathologist to testify from from out of country. The pathologist had moved prior to trial and testified via videoconference over objection. The Appellate Court said that while this violated the confrontation clause of the Indiana Constitution, the error was harmless. 24A-CR-2903. Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.