.jpg)
Check out my Oral Arguments
Click Button to Play
In the Matter of the Guardianship of E.N.
The Washington Circuit Court approved, with minor changes, an estate plan submitted by a protected person’s adult children in their capacity as co-guardians, even though that estate plan effectively nullified a previous will that specifically disinherited the children. The Court of Appeals affirmed. On transfer, In re Guardianship of E.N., 877 N.E.2d 795 (Ind. 2007), I represented the protected person's brothers and argued before the Supreme Court that the guardianship statutory scheme could not be used to rewrite a will. The Supreme Court agreed with my argument, vacated the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and reversed the probate court's approval of estate plan.
Click Button to Play
Carltez Jamall Taylor v. State of Indiana
​
At a jury trial in the Vanderburgh Circuit Court, Taylor was convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, and he received a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. On appeal, I argued that Taylor's life without parole sentence (LWOP) was unconstitutionally disproportionate and that his sentence should be reviewed and revised under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) to a term of years. The Supreme Court agreed with my argument that the sentence was inappropriate and vacated the LWOP sentence.​
Click Button to Play
David P. Allen v. Kimberly W. Allen
​
The Crawford Circuit Court issued an order requiring the father to pay his daughter’s expenses for dental school. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the trial court may order parents to pay graduate school expenses but that it erred in not properly apportioning expenses between the father, the mother, and the daughter. On a cross appeal to the Supreme Court, I argued on behalf of the wife that a trial court does not have the statutory authority to compel parents to pay for a child's graduate school in a divorce proceeding. In a case of first impression, the Supreme Court agreed with our cross-appeal.​​
Click Button Play
Kail Fortson v. State of Indiana
​
Fortson was convicted in the Vanderburgh Circuit Court of receiving stolen property, a Class D felony. I appealed on behalf of Mr. Fortson, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support an inference that he knew the property was stolen. The Court of Appeals agreed and reversed my client's conviction. On appeal, the State argued that a rule in Theft cases should be applied to Receiving Stolen Property cases; namely, that the unexplained possession of recently stolen property is sufficient to support a conviction. I defended against this appeal, urging the Supreme Court to overrule this principle which was based upon nearly 100 years of precedent. The Supreme Court agreed, overruled this long-standing legal principle, and reversed my client's conviction.
Click Button Play
Unsupervised Estate: Angela Mainstone v. Kristen Nicole Wireman
​
Dale and Anna Ward were married for approximately forty years, and over time, Dale accumulated railroad memorabilia. The memorabilia and the building in which it was stored eventually became a museum, which became part of Monon Whistle Stop, Inc., incorporated in 2008. Anna died in April of 2020, and Dale died a little over two years later. In September of 2022, Anna’s estate filed a claim against Dale’s estate for a 50% interest in Monon Whistle Stop and the real estate, property, and fixtures it occupies or maintains. The personal representative for Dale’s estate disallowed the claim and requested that the matter be set for a bench trial. The probate court entered its judgment denying Anna’s estate’s claim against Dale’s estate. On appeal, Anna’s estate argued that the probate court erred in denying its claim against Dale’s estate because (1) the estate is entitled to 50% of Monon Whistle Stop because no written instrument exists to transfer Anna’s share of Monon Whistle Stop to Dale upon her death and (2) the collection of railroad memorabilia housed in the museum, which has always been in the possession of Monon Whistle Stop, should be considered corporate property subject to her claim. I defended against this appeal, arguing that the probate court properly denied the Estate of Anna Ward's claim. The Court of Appeals agreed with our argument and affirmed the probate court.