November 2025
In Lanier v. State, the Court of Appeals deals with a suppression question on interlocutory appeal. The end result was that while the officer technically pulled the person over based on a law that was no longer in effect, it was an allowable mistake of law because the officer is not required to know all interpretations of the law. But that wasn’t the most interesting discussion in the case. The Court looked into meanings of the words “upon” and “highway” and the narrow/broad arguments made by the State and the Defense. What the Court did NOT consider is in Ind. Code 9-21-8-24(a)(3) it states that a person must use a turn signal if a person intends to change form one traffic lane to another, unless the movement can be made with reasonable safety. Given the Court of appeal spent so much time talking about the definitions of “upon” and “highway” and interpreting how those words worked together in the other statutes it considered, and given the Court of Appeals even cited 9-21-8-24(a)(3), it surprised me that it didn’t go into depth over the exception provided in that code. I would be interested to read how that exception would have been applied under the facts in Lanier. Lesson in this case, it is always better to use your turn signals than to not. 25A-CR-769 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
The Indiana Court of Appeals considered whether post conviction rule 1(10) applied to charges filed based on newly discovered evidence. Adkins was convicted and serving a sentence for an offense. She filed post conviction relief but also supposedly wrote letters of confession to a worse crime surrounding the facts of the offense she was serving a sentence on. The State warned that it would file the worse charges and Adkins sought declaratory judgement on whether her sentence should be capped at basically what she was serving. The trial court denied her relief and she appealed. The Court of Appeals noted that post conviction rule 1(10) applies to the trial court IF a person is successful on post conviction and then re-convicted of the same offense. In that case, the trial court cannot sentence over what was previously sentence. However, if the State files higher penalty charges based on newly discovered evidence, post conviction rule 1(10) does not apply and Adkins would not be protected from an enhanced penalty. Adkins v. State 25A-PC-438 (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 3, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
In Denny v. State, the Indiana Court of Appeals vacated a conviction and remanded the case back to the trial court for sentencing. The issue was whether the sentencing violated the double jeopardy analysis from Wadle and A.W. v. State. Denny was convicted of two counts and sentenced for each separately despite the two counts being very similar. Because there was a lack of factual details distinguishing the counts, it created an ambiguity which created a presumption for a double jeopardy violation. The Court of Appeals found that the State did not overcome that presumption and remanded the case back to the trial court to resentence. 25A-CR-374 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
In the recent Indiana Supreme Court case, Nemeth Properties LLC v. Panzica, the Court considered whether becoming an LLC member requires either a written agreement or written consent, does the constitutional right to a jury trial in civil cases cover unjust enrichment claims for a money judgement and does the doctrine of unclean hands apply to those claims? The first question was relatively easy. While there is no specific statue stating that writing is required to become an LLC member, when looking at the statutes surrounding businesses it was clear that the legislature’s use of written confirmation suggest it meant to require a writing. This breach of contract claim raised by Nemeth is a question suitable for a jury. The Court also concluded that unjust enrichment claims are species of quasi-contract claims and thus considered legal. The courts have long held that juries can decide these claims even when the remedy is a money judgement rather than an equitable relief. .Finally, the doctrine of unclean hands can apply as a defense to unjust enrichment claims regardless of whether the claim is seeking money judgement or equitable relief. 245-PL-356 N.E.3d (Ind. Nov. 6, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
Hendry appealed his convictions and argued his speech was protected under the First Amendment in Hendry v. State. However, the Appellette Court stated that because his expression on social media was focused on his own treatment rather than commenting on government action he failed to show his speech was unambiguously political speech. 25A-CR-22 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
The ever popular criminal rule 4 got argued in Gertchen v. State. Gretchen was charged, posted bond, failed to appear for court and then arrested in another state. Gretchen waited a year in the other jurisdiction before finally being released and then picked up again and taken to Indiana. Gretchen argued that the year he was waiting extradition should count for criminal rule 4 purposes. However, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court and stated the clock for CR4 starts up again when the person is returned to Indiana. 25A-CR-919 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
In Anderson v. State, Anderson appealed her sentence because she claimed the trial court used improper reasons for finding the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating ones. The Indiana Supreme Court found that because Anderson plead guilty and was sentenced within the confines of the statute, she waived her right to appeal the sentence. 25S-CR-294 (Ind. Nov. 13, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
In Monroe City Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. Bedford Recycling Inc., the Indiana Supereme Court had to determine whether a zoning board had authority to reconsider a final order granting a conditional use permit. The Court found that the board did not. The board is an administrative body and only has the power which is given to it in statute. Because there is no statute giving this administrative body the authority to reconsider their orders, they are not allowed to do so absent exception. Finding no execption applied, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court vacating the zoning boards revocation order. 255-MI-293 (Ind., Nov. 13, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s denial of a mid-trial motion for mistrial after body camera footage showed evidence that was previously excluded in McDaniel v. State. McDaniel moved the court not to allow any evidence of his conditional license at trial which was granted. But when the body camera footage was shown, the officer asked McDaniel for his conditional license. McDaniel objected and requested a mistrial but the court instead sent the jury to lunch then admonished the jury when they returned and continued the trial. McDaniel argued that the admonishment was not properly given because it was given after lunch. The Court of Appeals noted that McDaniel didn’t object to the jury going to lunch without the admonishment and found that because it was given prior to any new evidence being presented, it was proper. 25A-CR-798. (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
In a strange sentence case, Wyatt was sentenced to 8 years. 6 in the department of corrections and 2 to probation through community corrections. What’s weird about this is normally community corrections is considered an executed sentence rather than a suspended one. None the less, sentenced to probation. While on probation, Wyatt violated twice and was on his third violation. He was arrested and filed a motion for immediate release due to the belief that he had served his full two years because he earned good time credit. However, good time credit applies to an executed sentence not a probated one. So even though community corrections was supervising, the sentence was still probated and he had additional time that could be served for a violation. Wyatt v. State, 25A-CR-83 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov.18, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
The Indiana Appellette Court considered redeployment and how garnishment orders function as a continuous lien in First Finacial Bank, N.A. v. Vanhoose not on Vanhoose but on Vanhoose’s employer. The garnishment order was placed and the employer was paying it until there came a time that the employment relationship no longer existed. The employer stopped paying but then re-employed Vanhoose. The employer did not start re-paying on the garnishment believing that a new court order was necessity. The trial court entered judgements against the employer and the employer appealed. The Appellette Court found that a garnishment order entered under Ind. Code 34-55-8-7 acted as a continuing lien and was in effect whenever Vanhoose was employed or until there was a court order terminating the garnishment. The Appellette Court found that this was not willful disobedience of a court order though so there was no contempt. 25A-CC-898 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 18. 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
In Etzey v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court found there was a gap in post conviction rules and the change in criminal justice reforms. The rules state that a court is required to forward petitions for counsel to the State Public Defender if the petitioner is incarcerated in the Department of Corrections. However, when the reform happened in 2014, lower level felony offense remained in county jails rather than being transported to DOC. The post conviviction rules had not been updated to include County jails so the trial court did not err when it failed to forward Etzey’s petition. But the Ind. Sup. Ct forwards this issue to thr Rules Committee for amendments. 24S-CR-436 (Ind. Nov. 20, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
In Luke v. State, the Indiana Court of Appleals found that the stalking statute was not unconstitutionally vauge because it covered any course of course of course of conduct involving repeated or continued harassment. Luke argued that because it didn’t specifically say writing letters the statue was vauge. But, the statue was clear in that it requires objective fear standard, intent requirement and repeated conduct. The Court also upheld his sentence and stated his charges were properly joined. 24A-CR-2668 Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2025. Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
The Court of Appeals upheld a trial courts decision to hold a hearing involving a temporary involuntary commitment order over zoom in Commitment of A.V. The hearing was held remotely because the treating psychiatrist had good reason to believe A.V. would try to escape and the force that would be used to restrain this person would be counterproductive to treatment. As there was specific concern, there was no abuse of discretion. 25A-MH-1516 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
Porter appealed his conviction arguing that the trial court misapplied the effects of battery statute when evaluating his self defense claim and that the State failed to disprove sudden heat. Porter’s actions of planning and being the initial aggressor negated sudden heat arguments. Porter v. State, 25A-CR-835 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
The Indiana Court if Appeals found that there was no error when the trial court denied a parent’s continuance and that there was no error for having the termination hearing without the parent. Parent was represented by counsel who up until two days before the hearing had good contact with parent. Parent told couple they would be at the hearing and the hearing had already been continued twice. Parent then failed to appear and the hearing happened with parent’s counsel. The Court found that because there was not a good reason for the parent’s absence, that parent was represented and the balance needed to ensure the safety of the child it was proper to proceed with the hearing in parent’s absence. In re K.W., 25A-JT-1375 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
In another involuntary commitment case, the Court of Appeals that the claims filed on appeal were basically waived as they were not addressed at the commitment hearing. However, the Court did address the issue of the petitioner’s treatment plan changing. The Court noted that the change was not substantial (it only added oral medication) and was not substantive enough to materially affect the petitioner’s rights. Commitment of K. B., 25A-MH-925 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2025). Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.