Cale J. Bradford

Taylor Routh sued Joseph Bernard and various government defendants, including the State of Indiana and INDOT, after a motor-vehicle collision at the intersection of State Road 32 and Ohio Avenue in Muncie, alleging that the absence of a traffic signal contributed to the crash. The State Parties moved for summary judgment on grounds of immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed them, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. INDOT had conducted a 2017 engineering study pursuant to the Indiana Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices that found the intersection met none of the nine signal warrants, leading it to remove the existing signal and install a stop sign; after later crash data prompted further review, INDOT began planning a roundabout instead. The court held that these choices were discretionary, policy-oriented decisions shielded by statutory immunity because they involved weighing traffic studies, safety factors, and alternatives rather than ministerial acts.

torts & liability

Roy C. Robinson was convicted by a jury of two counts of Level 1 felony rape, Level 1 felony attempted rape, Level 3 felony kidnapping, Level 3 felony criminal confinement, and several Level 6 felonies after abducting K.F. in Indianapolis, forcing her to engage in sexual acts, and later fleeing police, which resulted in a crash injuring two others; he also admitted to being a habitual offender and received an aggregate 44-year sentence. On appeal after remand from the Indiana Supreme Court, Robinson argued that the trial court committed fundamental error by not instructing the jury that it must unanimously agree on the specific acts supporting each rape charge and that his two Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement convictions violated Indiana’s prohibition on substantive double jeopardy. The Court of Appeals affirmed the rape and most other convictions, finding no fundamental error on the jury-instruction claim, but reversed in part by vacating one of the resisting convictions. It reasoned that the two resisting counts arose from a single continuous episode of flight in one location and time frame, making separate convictions improper under double-jeopardy principles, and remanded for the trial court to vacate one of those convictions while leaving the remainder of the judgment intact.

criminal lawprocedure

Justin Gordon and Kierston Cates sued Terex Corporation and related companies, along with the equipment rental company, alleging negligence, products liability, and gross negligence after Gordon was severely injured when a rented boom lift he was operating contacted a power line on February 13, 2023. They filed their pro se complaint in Pike County just 21 minutes before the two-year statute of limitations expired but did not submit or request issuance of summonses as required by Indiana Trial Rule 3. After the defendants moved to dismiss with prejudice under Trial Rule 12(B)(6) on statute-of-limitations grounds, the plaintiffs sought voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Trial Rule 41(A)(1), but the trial court denied their motion and granted the defendants' motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the action was never timely commenced because summonses were not issued before the limitations period expired, so the complaint on its face showed the claims were time-barred and failed to state a claim for relief.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a boundary dispute between the Gordon S. Nesbit Revocable Trust and Robert Jason Hendrickson over adjoining parcels in Monroe County, Indiana, where the parties disagreed on the location of their shared property line and the ownership of a roughly 3.22-acre strip of land. After a bench trial, the trial court ruled for Hendrickson on his counterclaim to quiet title, and the Trust appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the evidence supported Hendrickson’s proposed boundary line as the true line under original survey doctrine. The court reasoned that a 2023 survey by Deckard correctly identified the section centerline based on historical monuments, fences, and trace evidence, while earlier surveys by Graham were flawed retracements that failed to meet minimum standards and improperly disregarded relevant physical indicators. The 1974 deed had transferred the entire east half of the northwest quarter, rendering subsequent attempts to convey part of that land ineffective.

property

John Merchant, a former co-owner of Indiana Illinois Iowa Boxcar, LLC (“iCube”), sued the accounting firm Katz Sapper & Miller (KSM) for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty after selling his interest in the company. He alleged that KSM, which handled accounting for iCube and related entities, failed to disclose that iCube’s other owners had made undisclosed loans to another company they controlled. KSM moved to dismiss under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6), arguing it had never provided services to Merchant personally and therefore owed him no duty. The trial court granted the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Indiana law does not impose a duty on an accountant to a non-client individual even when the accountant served the company in which the individual held an ownership interest.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

Dimanione Lovelace was charged in Tippecanoe County with felony murder and related offenses stemming from a series of armed robberies in Howard, Grant, and Tippecanoe Counties that culminated in the shooting death of Anthony Holdbrook during a purported firearms transaction. The trial court convicted him of felony murder, two Level 5 felony conspiracy-to-commit-robbery counts, and a firearm enhancement, then imposed an aggregate seventy-two-year sentence with eight years suspended. On appeal, Lovelace argued that the Howard and Grant County offenses should have been transferred, that evidence was insufficient to support the firearm enhancement, and that the trial court abused its discretion or imposed an inappropriate sentence given the nature of the offenses and his character. The Court of Appeals rejected each claim, holding that venue was proper, sufficient evidence supported the enhancement, the sentencing decision was within the trial court’s discretion, and the sentence was not inappropriate in light of Lovelace’s criminal history and the circumstances of the crimes. The court therefore affirmed the judgment in full.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

Connor Bosworth was convicted after a bench trial in Blackford Circuit Court on two counts of Level 4 felony child exploitation, sixteen counts of Level 5 felony child exploitation, ten counts of Level 5 felony possession of child pornography, and five counts of Level 6 felony possession of child pornography, arising from his possession and distribution via Instagram of numerous explicit images involving minors, including personal acquaintances; he received an aggregate sixty-four-year sentence with twenty-three years suspended. On appeal, Bosworth challenged the admission of evidence obtained from a search warrant served on Meta more than ten days after issuance, arguing that Indiana Code section 35-33-5-7(b) required its exclusion, and also claimed his sentence was inappropriate. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence. Because Indiana precedent is silent on the consequences of an untimely warrant execution, the court adopted federal guidance: suppression is not required where probable cause supporting the warrant persists, the defendant suffered no prejudice from the delay, and the delay did not result from deliberate disregard of the law by officers. The court further found the sentence appropriate given the volume and nature of the offenses and Bosworth’s lack of remorse.

criminal lawprocedure

In 2011, Matthew Dale Thies, Sr. was convicted of three counts of Class A felony child molesting and two counts of Class C felony child molesting based on acts against his girlfriend’s then-nine-year-old daughter, C.T.; his direct appeal was unsuccessful, and he later sought post-conviction relief on grounds of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The post-conviction court denied the petition in September 2024. The Court of Appeals affirmed that denial, holding that Thies failed to show prejudice from any alleged deficiencies by counsel. The court reasoned that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, including C.T.’s consistent and detailed accounts to multiple people, physical evidence such as seminal material matching Thies’s DNA, medical findings of unexplained vaginal trauma that resolved after Thies left the home, and Thies’s own admissions regarding nightly rituals involving close physical contact and at least one instance of genital touching.

criminal lawprocedure

In this interlocutory appeal, Parnell Dion Lanier challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence recovered during a traffic stop that led to charges of Level 5 felony unlawful carrying of a handgun, Level 5 felony possession of cocaine, and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the stop was lawful. Officer Poynter initiated the stop after observing Lanier turn from a gas station parking lot without signaling, which the court found constituted at least a reasonable mistake of law under the amended Indiana Code section 9-21-8-24, satisfying both the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. Applying the Litchfield factors, the court determined that the officer’s high degree of suspicion, the minimal intrusion of the stop, and the legitimate law-enforcement interest in traffic enforcement rendered the stop reasonable, so the recovered contraband was admissible.

criminal lawprocedure

Jorge Juarez Lopez was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of Level 1 felony rape, two counts of Level 5 felony intimidation, and one count of Class A misdemeanor counterfeit government-issued identification, arising from his June 2023 break-in at the home of seventeen-year-old M.G., during which he threatened her with a knife, digitally and vaginally raped her, and warned her not to report the crimes or he would kill her and her sister. DNA evidence and M.G.’s hospital examination corroborated her account. On appeal, Lopez argued that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a mistrial after M.G.’s emotional outburst following her testimony and by imposing an aggregate sixty-year sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court’s admonishment to the jury adequately addressed any prejudice from the outburst and that the record contained no indication the sentence was imposed as punishment for Lopez’s decision to go to trial rather than accept a plea offer.

criminal lawprocedure

In this divorce case, Kenneth and Penni Beckman disputed the division of assets after a 2014 marriage governed by a premarital agreement that preserved each spouse’s individual property and required equal division of joint property, with Penni also seeking attorney’s fees based on Kenneth’s litigation conduct. The trial court upheld the agreement’s validity, confirmed Penni’s sole ownership of CNC Safety, awarded Kenneth the jointly formed K&P Homes but ordered an equalization payment to Penni, and granted Penni $200,000 in attorney’s fees after finding Kenneth had prolonged the proceedings in bad faith. On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s enforcement of the premarital agreement, the fee award, and the overall approach to dividing K&P, but reversed the specific amount of the equalization payment (which exceeded half of K&P’s net value) and the double-counting of one trailer as separate assets. The court remanded for recalculation of the payment to equal exactly one-half of the business’s $1,232,780 value and correction of the duplicate award.

family lawproperty

In Shambreka Hall v. State of Indiana, the defendant was convicted of Level 4 felony operating a vehicle with a Schedule I or II controlled substance (THC) in her blood causing death after a September 2022 collision in which motorcyclist Dale Womack was killed. Hall appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove her blood results proximately caused the death and that Indiana Code section 9-30-5-5 is unconstitutionally vague. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in a 2-1 decision, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence of impairment and causation under the statute and that the law provided adequate notice of prohibited conduct. The majority rejected claims that external factors like Womack’s speed and intoxication broke the chain of causation.

criminal law

The case involved a dispute between brothers Ricky and Jeffrey Greene, who became co-trustees of a family trust holding a 352-acre farm after their mother’s death in 2023. Ricky sought to sell the farm to maximize returns for beneficiaries, while Jeffrey opposed any sale, leading each to petition for the other’s removal as trustee. The trial court removed Ricky as co-trustee, ordered each to pay their own attorney fees, and ruled that the trust terms prohibited liquidation of the farm and that the Indiana Prudent Investor Act did not authorize a sale. On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed all rulings, finding that the trust explicitly required the farm to remain in trust until the death of Jeffrey’s last surviving child, with net income distributed to the beneficiaries during that period, and contained no authorization for sale. The court further held that the trust’s specific provisions controlled over the Prudent Investor Act, which allows its standards to be altered or restricted by trust terms.

propertyprocedurefamily law

In this case, the State charged Kinshasha Johnson with Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and Level 5 felony unlawful carrying of a handgun, based on allegations that he possessed a handgun while having a prior Illinois felony conviction for exploitation. Johnson moved to dismiss those counts, and the trial court granted the motion, ruling that the charges failed to state an offense with sufficient certainty. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion because the charging information adequately informed Johnson of the allegations against him and the prior out-of-state conviction qualified as a serious violent felony under Indiana Code section 35-47-4-5. The court reasoned that Indiana Code section 1-1-2-4(b) expressly includes substantially similar convictions from other jurisdictions, and the statutes provided clear notice of the prohibited conduct without being unconstitutionally vague. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

gunscriminal lawprocedure

Roderick Woodard-Ward was convicted of Level 5 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury after an altercation in the Marion County Jail, where he stomped on inmate Michael Mathis’s head multiple times, causing injuries including lacerations requiring staples and a dislocated shoulder. Woodard-Ward appealed, claiming the trial court erred in admitting evidence and instructing the jury and that the evidence was insufficient to overcome his self-defense claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient to disprove self-defense because, although Mathis initiated the confrontation by entering Woodard-Ward’s cell and attempting to seize a shank, Mathis then tried to retreat from the cell before being dragged back inside by another inmate, after which Woodard-Ward continued the attack. The court concluded that this continued aggression following the victim’s attempted retreat allowed the jury to reasonably reject the self-defense claim.

criminal lawprocedure

In this paternity case, Mother K.S. petitioned to establish Father J.O’S.’s paternity of their child and sought custody, restricted parenting time due to unsubstantiated concerns about his alcohol use, and child support; Father requested standard parenting time under Indiana Guidelines and contested the support amount. The juvenile court granted Mother primary custody, limited Father’s parenting time with a conditional path to the Guidelines, ordered him to pay $941 per week in support retroactively, and found him $30,105 in arrears. On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed both rulings, holding that the parenting-time restriction lacked evidence of endangerment because Mother’s breathalyzer tests showed no violations above the legal limit and her income-based claims were unsupported by Father’s W-2 or other records. The court also found the support calculation abused discretion by relying on an inflated weekly income figure inconsistent with Father’s documented earnings and remanded for recalculation using accurate current incomes and proper parenting-time credits.

family law

In February 2021, Ecosystems Connections Institute, LLC applied to the Indiana Department of Natural Resources for permission to remove the over-100-year-old Providence Mill Dam, a low-head dam on Silver Creek in southern Indiana, citing safety risks and barriers to fish passage; the City of New Albany opposed the project. The DNR granted the permit, a decision upheld by the Natural Resources Commission after an administrative law judge's review, and the City then sought judicial review. The trial court affirmed the Commission's approval of summary judgment for ECI, and the Indiana Court of Appeals likewise affirmed. The court held that no genuine issue of material fact existed on whether removal would create unreasonable hazards to life or property or cause unreasonable harm to fish, wildlife, or botanical resources, as the City's sole contrary evidence (an expert affidavit) had been properly stricken and ECI's evidence showed no such risks (with expected positive ecological effects instead).

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

Charles Brackemyre sued the Indiana Department of Transportation and the State of Indiana for damages after a 2017 motorcycle crash on State Road 56 in Orange County, alleging sixteen negligence claims related to the roadway’s design, construction, upkeep, repair, and maintenance; he claimed that softened “tar snakes” from crack repairs became slippery in hot weather, causing him to lose control and sustain injuries. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and Brackemyre appealed after his motion to correct error was denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment on all claims except negligent maintenance of the roadway. On that claim, the court reversed and remanded, holding that Brackemyre’s designated evidence created genuine issues of material fact regarding the defendants’ negligence and his own contributory negligence, because a reasonable factfinder could conclude his speed (within the posted limit but above the curve’s advisory speed) did not bar recovery as a matter of law.

proceduretorts & liability

In Hawkins v. State, the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed Ronald Hawkins's appeal from his convictions on two counts of Class C felony non-support of a dependent child, after he failed to appear at a pretrial hearing and at his November 2011 jury trial, at which neither he nor counsel was present. The majority affirmed the convictions, holding that Hawkins received sufficient notice that his public defender's motion to withdraw would be granted if he did not appear at the October 26 hearing and that his nonappearance effectively waived his right to counsel for due-process purposes. It reversed in part and remanded on separate issues concerning the classification of the offenses and the imposition of consecutive sentences. A dissent contended that the record did not establish a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of counsel given the short interval between withdrawal and trial and the lack of explicit notice that counsel had been removed.

criminal lawprocedurefamily law

Weaver v. State was a criminal appeal heard by the Indiana Court of Appeals, arising from a trial court judgment against defendant Weaver. The three-judge panel, in an opinion by Judge Bradford with Judges Vaidik and Crone concurring, affirmed the lower court's ruling in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The decision addressed multiple issues on appeal but provided no further factual or legal details in the excerpted header.

criminal law