Paul D. Mathias

Lydia Theresa Conley appealed the post-conviction court's denial of her petition for relief following her conviction for the 2019 murder of her ex-girlfriend Delilah Martinez. She argued that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to a witness's hearsay testimony recounting Martinez's statement that Conley had threatened to shoot her, by stipulating to surveillance videos without challenging their foundation, and by not requesting a supplemental reasonable-theory-of-innocence jury instruction. The Court of Appeals held that counsel performed unreasonably by not objecting to the hearsay evidence, as the objection would have been sustained, but concluded that Conley failed to demonstrate unreasonable performance regarding the videos or instruction. On the full record, the court determined that the single error was insufficient to establish that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief, and it affirmed the denial of Conley's petition.

criminal law

In April 2023, Nicholas Blackburn crashed his vehicle into another car while having fentanyl in his blood, killing the driver, Brittany Wilson, who was 20–24 weeks pregnant; emergency responders performed a C-section, but the child died shortly afterward. The State charged Blackburn with two counts of Level 4 felony causing death while operating a vehicle with a controlled substance or its metabolite in his blood—one count for Wilson and one for her child. The Court of Appeals affirmed both convictions, holding that the trial court properly admitted the blood-test evidence and that the State presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact-finder to conclude the child was a “person” under the statute because it had a detectable heartbeat at the time of delivery. The court rejected Blackburn’s argument that viability required proof the child could have survived long-term outside the womb, finding the evidence of a heartbeat and post-delivery medical intervention adequate.

criminal lawabortion

George Lane was convicted in Indiana in 2008 of Class C felony child molesting and initially required to register as a sex offender for ten years. After moving to Kentucky in 2018, where his Indiana conviction triggered a lifetime registration requirement, he registered there; upon returning to Indiana in 2019, state officials determined that his Kentucky lifetime status now obligated him to register for life under Indiana law. Lane sued the Indiana Department of Correction Commissioner and Dearborn County Sheriff for declaratory relief, arguing that his Indiana obligation remained only ten years and that he was no longer subject to Kentucky requirements. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Indiana’s jurisdiction statute requires lifetime registration for any offender who incurs an ongoing lifetime duty in another state of residency, regardless of later relocation back to Indiana.

criminal law

The case involved Barry D’Marlo Billingsley’s appeal of his murder conviction from the Lake Superior Court, primarily challenging the denial of his motion to dismiss under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) for an alleged speedy-trial violation, along with an evidentiary issue. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the new Criminal Rule 4.1(A)(4), effective January 1, 2024, requires trial courts to designate on the record whether any granted continuance is excluded from the 365-day speedy-trial period due to the defendant’s acts, court congestion, or emergency. The court further ruled, as a matter of first impression, that a party must make a timely and specific objection to any such designation to preserve the correctness of that designation for appellate review; absent that objection, the issue is waived. This requirement ensures a clear record without altering the State’s duty to bring the defendant to trial within the Rule 4(C) timeframe or imposing any reminder obligation on the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

Madison Futa and Sarah Denunzio, former students at Saint Joseph High School, sued the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, the school, principal John Kennedy, athletic director Debra Brown, and volleyball coach Justin Cochran. They alleged negligence, negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, and Title IX violations stemming from Cochran’s alleged inappropriate sexual comments to players and transmission of explicit photos and messages to Denunzio, along with the school officials’ alleged failure to act on prior complaints. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations under Indiana Code section 34-11-2-4(a). The court found that neither COVID-related tolling, equitable tolling, the discovery rule, nor fraudulent concealment (active or passive) extended the deadline, as the plaintiffs presented no designated evidence of statements or actions by the defendants calculated to prevent inquiry or mislead them about their claims.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

In this case, Michael A. Conley, Sr., former chairman of USA Track & Field’s Board of Directors, appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to compel arbitration in a third-party lawsuit brought by USATF. The underlying dispute arose from Conley’s alleged communications and coordination with another board member during the 2024 Olympic marathon trials bidding process, which USATF claimed constituted a breach of Conley’s fiduciary duties after an ethics investigation affected its status as the national governing body for track and field. Conley argued that USATF’s bylaws required arbitration of any controversy involving its recognition as that governing body. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial, holding that the bylaw applied only to controversies directly concerning USATF’s ongoing recognition as the national governing body, not to a claim of individual fiduciary breach whose resolution would have no effect on that status.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this Indiana divorce enforcement case, Eric Vonderheide appealed a trial court order finding him in arrears by $40,487.50 on his ex-wife’s share of his Army retirement pension under their 2020 settlement agreement, after the Defense Finance Accounting Service failed to pay her directly and he refused to pay. The Court of Appeals majority dismissed the appeal without prejudice, holding it lacked jurisdiction because the order merely identified the debt without requiring immediate payment before final judgment and left unresolved issues such as contempt and attorney’s fees. The court clarified that interlocutory appeals as of right under Appellate Rule 14(A)(1) for orders involving “the payment of money” turn on whether the order actually compels surrender of funds rather than on its specific wording, and the order here was neither final nor met that standard. A dissent argued the ruling was appealable as a final judgment.

family lawprocedure

Michael C. Davis appealed the revocation of his probation after pleading guilty in 2022 to multiple child seduction and related offenses involving his daughter and stepdaughter, for which he received a sixteen-year sentence with over 3,200 days suspended to probation. The trial court found that Davis had violated probation conditions by being present at a park and having contact with children under age sixteen, and it ordered him to serve 2,502 days of his previously suspended sentence; Davis also argued that the court had improperly found he waived his right to counsel through his conduct during the underlying proceedings. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Davis had forfeited his right to counsel by his repeated actions that caused multiple attorneys to withdraw, including filing complaints and creating breakdowns in the attorney-client relationship despite warnings from the court. On the probation issue, the court concluded that the violations were clear under the explicit terms of probation and that the sanction was a proper exercise of discretion in light of the serious nature of Davis’s original offenses.

criminal lawprocedure

Roger Rodriguez, Jr. appealed his convictions for murder and Level 3 felony robbery arising from a June 2023 incident in which he and a codefendant arranged to meet the victim at a residence, after which the victim was shot and items were taken from his vehicle. The Court of Appeals addressed two issues: whether Rodriguez had preserved for appeal his objection to a surveillance video showing him removing items from the victim’s car, and whether the trial court erred in its self-defense jury instruction. The court held that Rodriguez waived the evidentiary issue because, despite an earlier objection, he later affirmatively told the trial court he had “[n]o objection” to the video’s admission, which under Indiana Evidence Rule 103 forfeited appellate review. On the second issue, the court found no error in the self-defense instruction, concluding it correctly stated the law on both subjective and objective standards, was supported by the evidence, and contained no confusing surplusage. The court therefore affirmed the convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

Demarcus Davis was convicted of murder and Level 3 felony robbery after he and a codefendant planned and carried out an armed robbery of a man at a residence in Anderson, Indiana, during which the victim was shot six times. Davis appealed, challenging the trial court’s decision to join his trial with his codefendant’s, the denial of his objection to a peremptory challenge, alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the appropriateness of his 96-year sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence in full. It clarified that an objection to joinder under Indiana Code section 35-34-1-9 preserves the issue for appeal but requires a showing of both an abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice to the outcome; the court found no reversible error on any of the claims, held that the evidence supported the convictions, and concluded that the sentence was not inappropriate given the planned robbery that escalated to murder and Davis’s criminal history.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved tenants Folabi Oshinubi, Denzel Lewis, and Clarence White suing the law firm Reiling Teder & Schrier, LLC (RTS) under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. They alleged that RTS improperly attempted to collect repair costs from them on behalf of their former landlord by sending letters and filing suit, even though the landlord had not sent the required 45-day itemized damages notice under Indiana law, rendering the claimed debt invalid. The trial court granted summary judgment to RTS, and the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that RTS established a prima facie case for the FDCPA’s bona fide error defense under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c), as the firm had required and received confirmation of the 45-day letter before proceeding and maintained procedures reasonably adapted to avoid violations; the tenants failed to respond or identify any genuine issue of material fact precluding judgment.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

The case concerned Anthony Thompson's convictions following a bench trial for Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine and three counts of Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. Thompson appealed the Madison Circuit Court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause under the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. The court held that the probable cause affidavit established a sufficient nexus because officers had observed Thompson's truck transport suspected drug dealer Lamont Moore during a controlled buy, Moore enter Thompson's home shortly before a suspected drug transaction at a Family Dollar store involving Thompson's truck, and other facts linking Moore's ongoing drug activity to the residence. Under the totality of the circumstances, these observations and reasonable inferences supported a fair probability that evidence of drug dealing would be found inside Thompson's home.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

The case concerned the interpretation of the First Amendment to the Janet L. Robinson Revocable Living Trust, which directed that, if the separate Life Insurance Trust produced a surplus after paying estate taxes, the trustee must make an equalization payment from the Revocable Trust’s residuary estate to the three grandchildren before the final distribution to the two surviving children. After Janet Robinson terminated the Life Insurance Trust in 2016 and assigned its policy proceeds directly to the children, the grandchildren petitioned the trial court for a comparable pre-distribution payment from the Revocable Trust. The trial court ruled in the grandchildren’s favor, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the amendment’s plain language conditioned any such payment on the existence of a surplus in the Life Insurance Trust, which had been eliminated and held no assets at the time of Janet’s death. Because the triggering condition never occurred, the court concluded that the grandchildren were not entitled to an equalization payment under the amendment.

property

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of K.B., the Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court must order a mental health facility to file a more detailed treatment plan after involuntarily committing a patient for up to ninety days under Indiana Code section 12-26-6-8(b). Following K.B.’s temporary commitment to Community Fairbanks Behavioral Health, the facility submitted an amended treatment plan summary, but the trial court denied K.B.’s request to compel a more definite plan. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial, holding that the statute requires only a filing sufficiently detailed to provide the patient reasonable notice of the treatment plan. The court reasoned that K.B. had the opportunity to challenge his treatment at the commitment hearing itself, identified no post-order changes in the plan, and that questions about professional standards, appropriateness, or least-restrictive alternatives are adjudicated before the treatment plan is filed.

healthcarecivil rightsprocedure

Harold Chastain filed a 2021 petition to expunge arrest and conviction records from six cases, which the trial court granted. More than three years later, after one of his other convictions became eligible, he moved to amend that petition to add a seventh case that had not qualified for expungement when he filed originally. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the amendment. The expungement statutes permit belated additions only when records were omitted due to excusable neglect or circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control; here the seventh case was omitted solely because Chastain chose to file before it became eligible, and the statutes require petitioners to wait until all requested records qualify before filing an initial, once-in-a-lifetime petition. Allowing rolling supplementation would nullify the statutory waiting periods meant to confirm law-abiding conduct.

criminal lawprocedure

The Indiana Court of Appeals case concerned the Marion Superior Court’s adjudication of two-year-old M.L. as a Child in Need of Services (CHINS) after the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) alleged neglect under Indiana Code section 31-34-1-1. DCS removed the child following repeated hospitalizations for severe malnutrition, failure to thrive, seizures, and other medical conditions, during which the child gained weight in the hospital but lost it rapidly upon returning to Mother A.L.’s care; Mother had also gone months without medical appointments and initially resisted services. Mother appealed, arguing that the petition should have been dismissed for DCS’s failure to timely file a pre-dispositional report and that the evidence did not prove the child would remain endangered without court intervention. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CHINS finding, holding that DCS established both the child’s endangerment and the necessity of ongoing coercive oversight given Mother’s history of inadequate care, even though she had begun cooperating and showing improvement by the time of the fact-finding hearing. The court reasoned that continued monitoring was required until Mother demonstrated sustained ability to meet the child’s complex medical and nutritional needs.

family lawprocedure

In Kristofer Polk v. State of Indiana, Polk appealed his convictions for two counts of Level 1 felony dealing in a controlled substance, enhanced by the deaths of two individuals, and his adjudication as a habitual offender, stemming from text messages and location data showing he arranged to deliver what was believed to be cocaine but was actually fentanyl to a residence where multiple people later died from fentanyl ingestion. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the victim’s entire 19-gigabyte cell phone “dump” containing over 112,000 files solely to authenticate specific text messages and location records, but concluded the error was harmless because the case was a bench trial and the judge was presumed to rely only on properly admitted evidence. The court further determined that the State presented sufficient evidence through authenticated communications, Polk’s proximity to the scene, and forensic findings linking the fentanyl to the deaths. It therefore affirmed the convictions while noting that the full data set was unnecessary for authentication.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Johnathan Juvinall’s appeal of his convictions for Level 5 felony strangulation and Level 5 felony domestic battery arising from an incident in which he grabbed his wife by the throat, lifted her off the floor, and slammed her head against a wall. Juvinall argued that the prosecutor committed misconduct during opening statements by referencing a letter he wrote instructing a girlfriend to help fabricate an alibi, and that his sentence was inappropriate in light of the offenses and his character. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence. It held that the prosecutor’s comment about Juvinall having an “explanation” for the letter did not violate his Fifth Amendment rights or shift the burden of proof, as it merely highlighted the evidence without commenting on his decision not to testify. The court also found the sentence appropriate given the violent nature of the attack and Juvinall’s significant criminal history, including a prior strangulation conviction involving the same victim.

criminal lawfamily lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case stems from a long-running 2012 dispute between BioConvergence LLC, its CEO Alisa Wright, and former employee Kathryn Eddy over Eddy’s termination, stock repurchase at a reduced price, and related claims of fraud, breach of contract, and securities violations, which resulted in counterclaims by the company. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s orders awarding attorneys’ fees to Eddy and remanded for an additional fee determination covering her defense of this appeal. The court held that the company’s Operating Agreement required indemnification for Eddy’s successful defense of claims tied to her role, and the Employment Agreement supported fee-shifting for successful enforcement; it found the trial court’s detailed findings after a multi-day evidentiary hearing adequately addressed the parties’ litigation conduct without error, while rejecting the appellants’ evidentiary challenges as failing to show any impact on the outcome.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

Matthew Joseph Dirig was convicted of Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in death after his girlfriend’s young son, who had documented mental-health and behavioral issues including prior self-harm attempts, died while in their care. Dirig appealed, claiming reversible error in the admission of certain evidence, insufficient evidence to support the conviction, and fundamental error in the jury instructions. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was properly admitted and sufficient to prove Dirig knowingly placed the child in a situation of high risk of death or injury. The court also found no fundamental error in the instructions, distinguishing the case from precedent because the instructions did not permit conviction on a lesser showing, the State’s closing argument emphasized the required mental state, and Dirig presented no compelling affirmative defense.

criminal law