Indiana Case Law Updates

In O’Connell v. Clay, the Supreme Court of Indiana applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel to a claim against standing for grandparent visitation rights. Because the mother had changed the child’s surname to reflect father’s surname, agreed to add father’s name to the birth certificate, acknowledged in open court that father was the child’s father and was the recipient of social security survivor’s benefits mother was estopped from arguing that father’s parents did not have standing to petition for visitation of the child. Additionally, the grandparents had already established a relationship with their grandchild. The Court indicated that the proper vehicle to address this issue would have been file a motion for relief from a void judgement rather than filing a motion to dismiss and then the appellate review. 255-MI-34 Ind. Oct. 16, 2025. To read the full opinion see public.courts.in.gov/decisions

In Mitchell v. State, the Indiana Appellate Court had to determine whether a trial court had abused its discretion when it refused to lift a no contact order that was a term of Mitchell’s probation. The App. Court found that because neither the probation department nor the court on its own motion sought to modify Mitchell’s probation, I.C. 35-38-2-1.8 did not apply. Furthermore, because the court is bound to the terms within a plea agreement if the court accepts the plea agreement, the court cannot without the consent of the prosecuting attorney reduce or suspend the sentence and impose a sentence not authorized by the plea agreement. So even thought the protected party and Mitchell wanted the no contact order lifted, because Mitchell agreed to it as a condition of probation and the State had not consented to the modification, the trial court was proper in denying Mitchell’s request to modify his probation terms. 25A-CR-1322 N.E.3d (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s findings on a case in R.J. v Indiana DCS. In this case, the trial court took judicial notice of drug screens from another case to conclude noncompliance. The Appellate Court found that while it is proper to take judicial notice of another case’s summaries, it is not proper to take judicial notice of another case’s substantive facts within. CB-10633 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 16, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov

In the case of In re Termination of A.R., the Court of Appeals reminds us of the importance of paying attention to court dates. A continuance was filed by the parties but because the continuance did not specify why the continuance was needed, did not specify a reasonable time frame and the parties failed to object or appear for the hearing entirely the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision. CB-10661. Read the full opinion at

public.courts.in.gov/decisions

The Indiana Court of Appeals looked at whether a partially recorded conversation at the police station was admissible under Indiana Rules of Evidence 617 in Brothers v. State. The Court determined that because the officers acted in good faith when trying to record their interview with Brothers their partially recorded interview was admissible. The Court also addressed a double jeopardy challenge. Using the Wadle test, the Court determined that the charging information was ambiguous and thus created a rebuttable presumption of a double jeopardy violation. The State failed to rebut this presumption and the conviction for count II was vacated. Brothers v. State 24A-CR-2327. Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions

In Hall v. State, the Court of Appeals determined that the State presented sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for operating while intoxicated with THC. In this case, there was an accident. Hall argued that the other driver’s conduct absolved Hall of liability because the other driver was driving over the speed limit and twice the legal limit. The accident occurred at an intersection with a partially obstructed view. The Court of Appeals determined that because Hall also had substances in her system that she was still liable for her actions in the accident. 25A-CR-868. Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions

In Carter V. State, Carter appealed his sentence arguing that his borderline intellectual function and disorder diagnosis should have provided stronger mitigators in his sentencing. The Appellate Court found that the sentence was appropriate given the aggravators and the mitigators. The Appellate Court compared this case to another and distinguished it due to prior criminal history and severity of the allegations. 25A-CR-710 Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 16, 2025. Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions

The Indiana Supreme Court issued an opinion on October 21, 2025, about whether an insurer filing an interpleader action was in bad faith. The Trial Court, and Supreme Court agree that the action taken by the insurer was not in bad faith. The insurer rejected the settlement demand and filed the interpleader action in order to preserve another claimants potential claim who still had time to file. The Court found that under the law that was available, the insurer can file the action under the safe harbor provision. Especially when the settlement demanded would result in the other claimants receiving little to no damages. Baldwin v. Standard Fire Ins. Co. 255-CT-33 (Ind. Oct. 21, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions

The Indiana Appellate Court upheld a conviction in Lopez v. State on October 23, 2025. Lopez appealed the trial court’s denial of a mistrial after a witness’ outburst on the stand. Lopez also appealed his sentence arguing that the sentence included a trial tax. The Court of Appeals determined that the admonishment given by the trial court was sufficient to protect against the mistrial. The Court of Appeals further determined that there was not a sentence penalty for Lopez exercising his right to a trial because the trial court based it’s sentence on the mitigating and aggravating factors presented as the law instructs. 25A-CR-1142. Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions

The Indiana Court of Appeals found that there was no due process violation when imposing a sanction for a probation violation in Sieg v. State. Sieg plead out to a case and was placed on probation. While on probation he picked up and plead guilty to another case. While there were four allegations in the petition to revoke, the trial court only found the new case to be valid but considered all four when sentencing. The Court of Appeals stated that the new case alone was enough to justify a full revocation and any consideration of the other allegations during sentencing was harmless error. 25A-CR-1430 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct 28 .2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions

In Chastain v. State, the Court of Appeals considered a motion to amend an expungement. The trial court denied the expungement amendment because Chastain failed to prove excusable neglect or that the circumstances were beyond his control. When the initial petition for expungement was filed, there was still a conviction that was not included in the petition and not eligible for expungement. The court found that because Chastain had control over when he filed the expungement and because that case could have been included he did not present sufficient circumstances to met the exception requirements. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court and upheld the denial of the amended expungement. 25A-XP-1105 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in/gov/decisions

Final case review for the night. In re M.L., is a case about whether a untimely report violated due process rights. In this case, the trial court had to weigh parent’s right to car, custody, control of the child and protecting the child’s welfare and determined that even though the report was filed late, it did not disclose any new information or suggestions that weren’t previously passed to the parent. As there was no real new information, the late filing did not violate due process. This case presented a unique set of facts that the Court of Appeals agreed allowed for the slight procedural delay. 25A-JC-399. To read the full opinion go to public.courts.in.gov/decisions