Full Opinion

IN THE Court of Appeals of Indiana FILED Aug 24 2026, 9:53 am David E. Hollowell, CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Appellant-Defendant Court of Appeals and Tax Court v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff August 24, 2026 Court of Appeals Case No. 25A-CR-52 Appeal from the Clark Circuit Court The Honorable Nicholas Karaffa, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 10C01-2307-FA-1 Opinion by Judge Pyle Judges Bradford and Kenworthy concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-52 | August 24, 2026 Page 1 of 28 Pyle, Judge. Statement of the Case [1] In October 2024, a jury convicted David Hollowell (“Hollowell”) of Class A felony rape,1 Class A felony child molesting,2 and Class A felony burglary3 for acts that he committed in April 2003. He now appeals those convictions and argues that: (1) the trial court erred in admitting into evidence his DNA test results; (2) the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a mistrial; and (3) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for Class A felony burglary. Concluding that: (1) the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence Hollowell’s DNA test results; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his motion for a mistrial; and (3) there is sufficient evidence to support Hollowell’s conviction for Class A felony burglary, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. [2] We affirm. Issues 1 IND. CODE § 35-42-4-1. 2 I.C. § 35-42-4-3. 3 I.C. § 35-43-2-1. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-52 | August 24, 2026 Page 2 of 28 1. Whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence Hollowell’s DNA test results. 2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Hollowell’s motion for a mistrial. 3. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support Hollowell’s conviction for Class A felony burglary. Facts [3] In April 2003, thirteen-year-old K.O. (“K.O.”) lived with her mother (“Mother”) and her stepfather (“Stepfather”) in a duplex apartment (“the apartment”) in Charlestown. Stepfather routinely left the apartment early in the morning to go to work and returned to the apartment at 6:00 a.m. to wake K.O. up for school. Mother often left the apartment early in the morning to go to work as well. [4] In the early morning hours of April 14, 2003, K.O. heard Mother and Stepfather leave the apartment for work. Before Stepfather had returned to the apartment to wake her up for school, K.O. was “startled out of [her] sleep” by a man (“the man”) rubbing her vagina. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 239). K.O., who could not see the man in the dark room and who wondered if Stepfather had accidentally touched her vagina as he was waking her up, said “Daddy?” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 240). The man responded, “I’m Kenny, b***h” and “put [a gun] to [her] head[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 240, 241). [5] The man told K.O. not to scream, ordered her to remove her clothes, and removed his jeans. He then licked her breast, forced her to perform oral sex on Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-52 | August 24, 2026 Page 3 of 28 him, and performed oral sex on her before engaging in sexual intercourse with her. K.O. noticed that the man smelled bad and that his facial hair was “scraggly[,] scratchy[,] and rough.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 242). [6] At some point during the sexual assault, K.O. heard Stepfather return to the apartment. Terrified that Stepfather would confront the armed man, K.O. told the man to go into her closet. As the man was attempting to put on his jeans, Stepfather tried to open K.O.’s bedroom door. When the man pushed against the door and told Stepfather to “[h]ang on a minute[,]” K.O. screamed “Daddy, he’s got a gun.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 245). Stepfather “busted through the door” and “tussled” briefly with the man before being shot in the head and falling to the ground in the hallway. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 245). [7] A naked K.O. jumped over Stepfather’s body and ran out of the apartment to a neighbor’s (“the neighbor”) house. She banged on the neighbor’s front door and told the neighbor that Stepfather had been shot and that she had been raped. The neighbor called 911 and gave K.O. some clothes to wear. When law enforcement officers arrived at the neighbor’s house, K.O. told them what had happened. She was subsequently transported by ambulance to a local hospital. [8] At the hospital, nurse Ginger Ottersbach (“Nurse Ottersbach”) performed a sexual assault forensic examination on K.O. During the examination, and relevant to this appeal, Nurse Ottersbach took an external vaginal swab (“the vaginal swab”) from K.O. When K.O. told Nurse Ottersbach that the man had Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-52 | August 24, 2026 Page 4 of 28 licked her breast, Nurse Ottersbach also took a swab from K.O.’s breast (“the breast swab”). [9] While K.O. was being medically examined, Stepfather, who had been transported to a Louisville hospital, was undergoing surgery for a traumatic brain injury.4 Also, during this time, law enforcement officers searched the apartment, collected evidence, and took photographs. Specifically, law enforcement officers collected from K.O.’s bedroom a bed cover (“the bed cover”), a pair of size 34x32 men’s jeans (“the jeans”), and a magazine containing .380 caliber ammunition. Further, law enforcement officers collected a spent .380 caliber case from the hallway where Stepfather had fallen after he had been shot. In addition, law enforcement officers took three photographs of the apartment’s front door frame, which showed damage near the strike plate (“the damaged front door frame photographs”). [10] Following her medical examination, K.O. spoke with a law enforcement officer. Although she had not seen the face of the man who had sexually assaulted her, she identified the man as forty-six-year-old Kenny Taul (“Taul”). According to K.O., Taul was “just kind of the drunk guy” who sometimes “hung out with the neighbors” in the duplex next door. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 250). K.O. further explained that, on one occasion, Taul had asked her to get him a beer, and she had told him that she was only thirteen years old. Later, 4 Stepfather spent two months in the hospital and seven months in rehabilitation but never fully recovered from his traumatic brain injury. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-52 | August 24, 2026 Page 5 of 28 Stepfather had told Taul that no one should be asking a thirteen-year-old girl for a beer. [11] That same day, K.O. identified Taul in a photo array, and she also identified his voice after hearing him speak at the police station. In addition, Taul wore size 34x32 jeans, and he had a magazine with .380 caliber ammunition in his pocket. On April 16, 2023, two days after K.O. had been sexually assaulted, the State charged Taul with Class A felony attempted murder, Class A felony rape, Class A felony child molesting, and Class A felony burglary. [12] The following month, May 2003, a forensic scientist (“the forensic scientist”) at the state police lab (“the lab”) tested K.O.’s vaginal and breast swabs and determined that the swabs contained a mixture of K.O.’s DNA and an unknown male’s DNA (“Unknown Male #1”). The forensic scientist further determined that the bed cover contained K.O.’s DNA and seminal fluid from another unknown male (“Unknown Male #2”). According to the forensic scientist, Taul’s DNA was not consistent with the DNA of either unknown male. Based on these test results, the State dismissed the charges against Taul. [13] Although Mother gave law enforcement officers a list of additional suspects, DNA testing revealed that the DNA of the additional suspects was not consistent with the DNA of either of the unknown males. With no further leads, in late 2003, law enforcement officers classified the case as a cold case. [14] Seventeen years later, in September 2020, Mother contacted Charlestown Police Department Detective Jason Broady (“Detective Broady”) and asked Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-52 | August 24, 2026 Page 6 of 28 him if there were any updates on the case. At that time, all of the original investigating officers had retired, and Detective Broady, who had begun working at the police department in 2004, after the 2003 investigation had occurred, was not familiar with the case. However, after speaking with Mother, “it didn’t sit well with” him that a thirteen-year-old girl had been sexually assaulted and her stepfather had been shot in front of her and no one was working on the case. (Tr. Vol. 5 at 18). Detective Broady reviewed the case file and the evidence and met with K.O. in October 2020. He believed that if the case was going to be solved, it would probably be through DNA. [15] Detective Broady began his investigation by requesting DNA testing of Stepfather, K.O.’s biological father (“biological father”), K.O.’s brother (“brother”), and other potential suspects who had not had their DNA tested during the 2003 investigation. The results of those DNA tests revealed that none of the men’s DNA was consistent with Unknown Male #1’s DNA. In addition, the DNA tests revealed that the DNA of K.O.’s brother, who had been fifteen years old in 2003, was consistent with the DNA of Unknown Male #2, whose DNA had been found on the bed cover. Following a further investigation, Detective Broady concluded that the seminal fluid that had been detected on the bed cover had likely come from K.O.’s brother when he had stayed in K.O.’s room while she had visited biological father in Kentucky. [16] In addition, Detective Broady discovered that the jeans had never been tested for DNA, and he sent them to the state police lab for a DNA test. The results of that test revealed that the DNA on the jeans was consistent with Unknown Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-52 | August 24, 2026 Page 7 of 28 Male #1’s DNA, which had also been found on K.O.’s vaginal and breast swabs. With no additional leads regarding the identity of Unknown Male #1, Detective Broady submitted Unknown Male #1’s DNA to a genetic genealogy company (“the genetic genealogy company”). [17] In late December 2022, Detective Broady received “a tip” from the genetic genealogy company that the Unknown Male #1 “was likely a child of Mary Jean Lozier [Hollowell] and Ronald Hollowell from Charlestown [(collectively “parents”)].” (Tr. Vol. 5 at 52-53). After receiving this tip, Detective Broady conducted a further investigation regarding the Hollowell family and learned that parents had three daughters and three sons, Hollowell, Dennis (“Dennis”), and Ronald (“Ronald”) (collectively “the brothers”). [18] In addition, Detective Broady determined that Ronald had a prior felony conviction and that his DNA was included in CODIS.5 Ronald’s DNA was not consistent with Unknown Male #1’s DNA, and Ronald was excluded as a suspect. Detective Broady then investigated Dennis, and a law enforcement officer swabbed the door handle of Dennis’ truck while Dennis was at work. A 5 “CODIS is the combined index DNA system.” (Tr. Vol. 5 at 53). In other words, “it’s a database that contains DNA profiles for millions and millions of people.” (Tr. Vol. 5 at 53). There are a variety of reasons that DNA gets put into CODIS, and “[o]ne of the biggest uses that law enforcement gets out of it is when certain persons are arrested or convicted of felonies, . . . , their DNA gets collected and it gets automatically put into the CODIS system.” (Tr. Vol 5 at 54). Law enforcement officers do not have the ability to go into CODIS, but they “can reach out to CODIS . . . to ask them questions or things like that.” (Tr. Vol. 5 at 54). In addition, “a lot of times [law enforcement officers] w[ill] get CODIS hits back[.]” (Tr. Vol. 5 at 54). The CODIS hit “just comes in . . . an email and it tells you . . ., . . . this person’s DNA profile was found in CODIS.” (Tr. Vol. 5 at 54). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-52 | August 24, 2026 Page 8 of 28 DNA analysis of that swab revealed that Dennis’ DNA was not consistent with Unknown Male #1’s DNA, and Dennis was also excluded as a suspect. [19] Detective Broady subsequently located Hollowell’s truck at a garage where the truck had been towed following an accident. A law enforcement officer collected DNA swabs from various areas of the truck, but the forensic scientist at the state police lab determined that none of the swabs contained sufficient DNA for her to analyze. [20] On July 20, 2023, Detective Broady prepared a twenty-two page affidavit (“the affidavit”) in support of his request for a search warrant to collect Hollowell’s DNA. In the affidavit, Detective Broady reviewed the facts of the case and the 2003 investigation. He further explained his 2020 conversation with Mother that had led him to reopen the case. In addition, Detective Broady explained that early in his investigation, he had obtained DNA samples from stepfather, biological father, brother, and additional suspects and that none of those people’s DNA had been consistent with Unknown Male #1’s DNA. He also explained that he had had the jeans tested for DNA and that results of that test had revealed that the DNA on the jeans was consistent with the DNA found on K.O.’s vaginal and breast swabs. [21] Detective Broady further explained that in December 2022, he had “received a tip that [Unknown Male #1] was one of three brothers, [Hollowell], Dennis Hollowell or Ronald Hollowell.” (Ex. Vol. 5 at 49). According to Detective Broady, in April 2003, Hollowell was thirty-two years old, Dennis was thirty- Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-52 | August 24, 2026 Page 9 of 28 one years old, and Ronald was twenty years old, and the brothers all lived within close proximity of the apartment at that time. [22] Detective Broady further explained that because Ronald had previously been convicted of a felony, his DNA was in CODIS. According to Detective Broady, Ronald’s DNA was not consistent with Unknown Male #1’s DNA. [23] In addition, Detective Broady explained that he had located on social media 2006 photographs of Hollowell and Dennis and determined that both men might have been capable of wearing size 34x32 jeans. Detective Broady further explained that in 2003, Dennis had long scraggly hair, and his driver’s license photograph suggested that he had scruffy facial hair as well. In addition, in 2003, Dennis lived in a house that was located approximately 500 feet from the apartment. [24] In the affidavit, Detective Broady explained that in January 2023, he and another detective began conducting surveillance of Dennis. After discovering that Dennis was operating his truck (“the truck”) with an expired registration, Detective Broady arranged for another officer to conduct a traffic stop on Dennis and to swab his driver’s license for DNA (“the driver’s license swab”). In addition, Detective Broady noticed that when Dennis was inside the truck, he opened his truck’s door handle (“the door handle”) by rolling down the window and reaching through it. Based on this observation that Dennis touched the door handle every time that he got into and out of the truck, Detective Broady swabbed the truck’s door handle (“the door handle swab”) for Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-52 | August 24, 2026 Page 10 of 28 DNA. Detective Brody submitted both swabs to the state police lab, and tests revealed that Dennis was not Unidentified Male #1. [25] In addition, Detective Broady explained in the affidavit that he had learned that Hollowell’s truck had been towed to a garage following an accident in October 2022 and that the garage had taken over ownership of the truck after Hollowell had abandoned it. According to Detective Broady, he had gone to the garage and had taken swabs from the steering wheel, the gearshift, and the ignition key. However, there was not enough DNA on the swabs for the forensic scientist at the state police lab to do an analysis. Another detective went back to the garage and took additional swabs of Hollowell’s truck, but again there was not enough DNA on those swabs to do an analysis. [26] According to the affidavit, Detective Broady, who had no idea where Hollowell was living or staying, believed that efforts to locate him were futile. Detective Broady asked the forensic scientist about the possibility of performing “some sort of kinship analysis” with the DNA that the lab had. (Ex. Vol. 5 at 52). The forensic scientist told Detective Broady that she would contact a forensic scientist on the paternity side of the lab (“the other forensic scientist”) to see if he could do a kinship analysis. [27] In May 2023, Detective Broady received a certificate of DNA analysis and comparisons (“the certificate”) from the other forensic scientist. According to the certificate, the other forensic scientist had compared the DNA profile from Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-52 | August 24, 2026 Page 11 of 28 the jeans to the DNA profile extracted from the door handle. The certificate specifically provided as follows regarding that comparison: The genetic results support the conclusion that Unknown Male #1 and [the person whose DNA profile had been extracted from the door handle] are related as full siblings. These genetic results are 88.93 times more likely if Unknown Male #1 is a full sibling of [the person whose DNA profile had been extracted from the door handle] than if they are unrelated. The probability of relationship (assuming a prior probability of 0.5) is 98.8880%. (Ex. Vol. 5 at 53). [28] In the affidavit, Detective Broady summarized the certificate as follows: In layman’s terms the Certificate of Analysis indicated that the DNA belonging to the perpetrator of the offenses to [Stepfather] and KO was a full sibling to Dennis, with 98.8880% probability. This leaves only a 1.112% possibility that they are not full siblings; while the 1.112% is possible, it is not probable. (Ex. Vol. 5 at 53). [29] Detective Broady further explained that after he had received the certificate, he had verified that Dennis’ male full siblings were Hollowell and Ronald. He had also searched parents’ obituaries to verify that parents had not had more than three sons. According to Detective Broady, he had found no evidence that suggested that parents “had any other male children in common that would be a full sibling to Dennis.” (Ex. Vol. 5 at 53). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-52 | August 24, 2026 Page 12 of 28 [30] According to the affidavit, in May 2023, Detective Broady had met with K.O. and had briefed her about his investigative findings. He had also verified the information that K.O. had provided during the 2003 investigation. [31] Also, in the affidavit, Detective Broady summarized the results of his investigation with “the following factors which have been indicated above that [Hollowell] is the perpetrator to the offenses described in this probable cause affidavit;” • Past address history for [Hollowell] indicate[s] in and around April 2003 he was living within close proximity of [the apartment] . . . • Photographs of [Hollowell] indicate that he would have been the appropriate size to wear 34x32 jeans • Driver’s license photos of [Hollowell] from 1999 through 2004 show that he had scruffy facial hair and at one point a mustache • [Hollowell] is the son of Mary Jean Hollowell and Ronald Eugene Hollowell • Mary Jean Hollowell and Ronald Eugene Hollowell had six children in total, three females and three males; [Hollowell], Dennis and Ronald • Dennis and Ronald have been eliminated as suspects through DNA analysis • The suspect’s DNA profile as analyzed through DNA left at the scene of the crime; a [vaginal] swab collected from KO, [a breast swab collected from KO] and from the jeans left by the suspect, indicate that he (suspect) is a full sibling Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-52 | August 24, 2026 Page 13 of 28 to the DNA profile collected from the exterior door handle of Dennis’ truck • Dennis has two male siblings, [Hollowell] and Ronald • Ronald’s DNA profile had been entered into CODIS following his felony arrests and no “CODIS hits” had been received • [The CODIS administrator] confirmed that Ronald’s DNA profile was in CODIS as was the suspect profile from the DNA collections on KO’s body. [The CODIS Administrator] further advised that she checked the profiles herself and Ronald was definitely not the suspect. • Your affiant was unable to find any records that suggested Mary Jean Hollowell and Ronald Eugene Hollowell had any other male children aside from [Hollowell], Dennis and Ronald • By process of elimination it is more probable than not that [Hollowell] is the perpetrator of the offenses described herein. (Ex. Vol. 5 at 54-55). [32] The trial court issued a search warrant authorizing law enforcement to collect Hollowell’s DNA. In addition, on July 20, 2023, the State charged Hollowell with Class A felony rape, Class A felony child molesting, Class A felony burglary, and Class A felony attempted murder.6 Law enforcement officers arrested Hollowell that same day. 6 The jury acquitted Hollowell of the attempted murder charge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-52 | August 24, 2026 Page 14 of 28 [33] Following his arrest, Hollowell agreed to speak to Detective Broady. During the video-recorded police interview (“the police interview”), Hollowell told Detective Broady that he did not know K.O. and that he had never been in the apartment. Detective Broady told Hollowell that his DNA had been found on the jeans and on K.O.’s body. In addition, Detective Broady asked Hollowell multiple times how his DNA had gotten on K.O.’s body. Each time, Hollowell responded that he had no idea or that he could not explain how that had happened. According to Hollowell, the DNA evidence had to have been incorrect. At the end of the police interview, a law enforcement officer collected Hollowell’s DNA with a buccal swab. [34] The results of the DNA test revealed that the DNA on the jeans was “at least one trillion times more likely if it originated from David Edward Hollowell and two unknown individuals than if it had originated from three unknown, unrelated individuals. This statistical analysis provides very strong support for the proposition that David Edward Hollowell is included.” (Tr. Vol. 5 at 73). Further, the DNA on the breast swab, which was consistent with Hollowell, occurred in one in seventy-six quintillion within a Caucasian population of unrelated individuals. (Ex. Vol. 9 at 109). Lastly, the DNA on the vaginal swab, was “four thousand one hundred times more likely if it originated from [K.O.] and David Edward Hollowell than if it originated from [K.O.] and an unknown, unrelated individual. This statistical analysis provides moderate support for the proposition that David Edward Hollowell is included.” (Tr. Vol. 5 at 84). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-52 | August 24, 2026 Page 15 of 28 [35] In July 2023, Hollowell filed a motion to quash the search warrant wherein he requested that the trial court order the State to “return or destroy any DNA information obtained from the service of such warrant.” (App. Vol. 2 at 58). Hollowell specifically argued that the search warrant had not been supported by probable cause. Following a hearing, the trial court found “that reasonable inferences drawn from the totality of the evidence support[ed] probable cause for the search warrant . . . for [Hollowell]’s DNA” and denied Hollowell’s motion to quash. (App. Vol. 2 at 80). [36] In August 2023, Hollowell filed a motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to quash. In September 2023, before the trial court had ruled on his motion to reconsider, Hollowell filed a motion to correct error wherein he asked the trial court to vacate its order denying his motion to quash. That same month, the trial court denied Hollowell’s motions to reconsider and to correct error. [37] The following month, October 2023, Hollowell filed a motion requesting that the trial court certify for interlocutory appeal its order denying his motions to reconsider and to correct error. The trial court granted Hollowell’s motion and certified its interlocutory order for appeal, and Hollowell filed a petition asking this Court to accept jurisdiction of his interlocutory appeal. In December 2023, this Court’s motions panel denied Hollowell’s petition. [38] At Hollowell’s six-day trial in October 2024, the jury heard the facts as set forth above regarding the offenses and the 2003 and 2023 investigations. In addition, the trial court admitted into evidence, over Hollowell’s objection, the results of Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-52 | August 24, 2026 Page 16 of 28 his DNA test. The trial court also admitted into evidence the damaged front door frame photographs. At the end of the trial, during the testimony of the final witness, Detective Broady, the trial court admitted into evidence and the jury watched the video of the police interview. Hollowell did not testify. [39] In addition, during closing argument, the prosecutor argued as follows: You heard David Hollowell in his police interview say that he’s never met [K.O.], doesn’t know who she is, has never seen her, but what you didn’t hear in that police interview was an explanation how in the world would his DNA get on a thirteen- year old’s vagina if he’s never met her? If he’s never seen her? How in the world would David Hollowell’s DNA get on her left breast? How? He didn’t give you an explanation. (Tr. Vol. 5 at 175). Hollowell requested to approach the bench and asked the trial court to grant a mistrial. According to Hollowell, the prosecutor had engaged in misconduct by improperly commenting on his failure to testify. The prosecutor responded that she was “merely talking about what was shown in the interview, which was exactly (inaudible) he was asked to explain, and he couldn’t give an explanation.” (Tr. Vol. 5 at 175). The trial court denied Hollowell’s motion for a mistrial. [40] When the prosecutor resumed its closing argument, she explained to the jury as follows: And so, we heard in the police interview that Detective Broad[y] confronted Mr. Hollowell asking for an explanation. The important thing is, Mr. Hollowell’s not required to provide an Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-52 | August 24, 2026 Page 17 of 28 explanation, ok? He’s not required to testify. But you saw the video. So, think about the video, think about the interview. (Tr. Vol. 5 at 176). During Hollowell’s closing argument, he contended that Taul, who had died in 2016 or 2017, had committed the offenses in this case. [41] Following closing arguments, the trial court instructed the jury, in relevant part, as follows: [A] person charged with the commission of a crime cannot be compelled to testify and is under no duty or obligation to testify. The fact that [Hollowell] did not testify raises no presumption of any kind against him. It shall not be commented upon, referred to, or in any manner considered by the Jury in determining the guilt or innocence of [Hollowell]. (Tr. Vol. 5 at 196). [42] The jury convicted Hollowell of Class A felony rape, Class A felony child molesting, and Class A felony burglary. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Hollowell to an aggregate sentence of sixty (60) years. [43] Hollowell now appeals. Decision [44] Hollowell argues that: (1) the trial court erred in admitting into evidence his DNA test results; (2) the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a mistrial; and (3) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for Class A felony burglary. We address each of his contentions in turn. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-52 | August 24, 2026 Page 18 of 28 1. Admission of Evidence [45] Hollowell first argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence his DNA test results. Although we generally review claims relating to the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion, to the extent those claims implicate constitutional issues, we review them de novo. Ramirez v. State, 174 N.E.3d 181, 189 (Ind. 2021). Here, Hollowell specifically contends that “[t]he search warrant affidavit which led to the collection of this evidence was not supported by probable cause, and therefore, [his] right against unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment was violated.” (Hollowell’s Br. 18). We disagree. [46] The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. State v. Rivera, 255 N.E.3d 1223, 1230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied. “Probable cause is a fluid concept incapable of precise definition and must be decided based on the facts of each case.” Id. at 1230-31 (cleaned up). “Significantly, probable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity.” Id. at 1231 (cleaned up). Further, “[p]robable cause is not a high bar.” Id. (cleaned up). “In deciding whether to issue a search warrant, the issuing magistrate’s task is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit, there is a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Id. (cleaned up). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-52 | August 24, 2026 Page 19 of 28 [47] When reviewing whether a search warrant was supported by probable cause, our duty as the reviewing court is to determine whether the magistrate had a “substantial basis” for concluding that probable cause existed. Id. In considering whether the trial court had a substantial basis for its decision, we consider only the evidence presented to the trial court. Id. In addition, in determining whether an affidavit provided probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, doubtful cases should be resolved in favor of upholding the warrant. Id. We presume that the search warrant was valid, and “the burden is upon the defendant to overturn that presumption.” Albrecht v. State, 185 N.E.3d 412, 420 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied. [48] Here, Hollowell argues that the affidavit was insufficient to support a finding of probable cause and the issuance of the search warrant because the affidavit did not support the reliability of the informant who gave the tip. “The United States Supreme Court has held that uncorroborated hearsay from a source of unknown credibility, standing alone, is insufficient to support a finding of probable cause and issuance of a search warrant.” Ware v. State, 859 N.E.2d 708, 716 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983)), reh’g denied, trans. denied. Similarly, INDIANA CODE § 35-33-5-2(b) requires that probable cause affidavits based on hearsay either: (1) contain reliable information establishing the credibility of the source and of each of the declarants of the hearsay and establishing that there is a factual basis for the information furnished; or Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-52 | August 24, 2026 Page 20 of 28 (2) contain information that establishes that the totality of the circumstances corroborates the hearsay. [49] “Independent police investigation corroborating an anonymous informant’s statements will establish the trustworthiness of the hearsay for the purposes of establishing probable cause.” Ware, 859 N.E.2d at 716. “However, the confirmation of easily obtained facts and conditions existing at the time of the tip is insufficient to establish an informant’s credibility.” Id. (cleaned up). [50] Here, our review of the affidavit reveals that after Detective Broady had received the tip that Unknown Male #1 was likely a child of Mary Jean Lozier Hollowell and Ronald Hollowell from Charlestown, Detective Broady undertook an extensive investigation to verify the tip. Specifically, as set forth in his twenty-two-page affidavit, he determined that parents had three sons, Ronald, Dennis, and Hollowell. After ruling out both Ronald, whose DNA was located on CODIS, and Dennis, whose DNA was not consistent with Unknown Male #1’s DNA, Detective Broady focused his investigation on Hollowell. During the course of that investigation, Detective Broady obtained the following information about Hollowell: (1) his past address history revealed that, in 2003, he was living in close proximity to the apartment; (2) old photographs that Detective Broady found on social media revealed that he would have been the appropriate size to wear 34x32 jeans; and (3) 1999 to 2004 driver’s license photographs revealed that Hollowell had scruffy facial hair during that time. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-52 | August 24, 2026 Page 21 of 28 [51] In addition, Detective Broady asked the lab to do paternity testing to compare Dennis’ DNA to Unknown Male #1’s DNA. As a result of the testing, Detective Broady learned that there was a high probability that Dennis and Unknown Male #1 were full biological siblings. Further, Detective Broady searched parents’ obituaries and found no evidence that suggested parents had any other male children that would be a full sibling to Dennis. [52] These facts set forth in the affidavit, which were not easily obtained, corroborated the informant’s tip and provided sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s probable cause determination. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence Hollowell’s DNA results.7 7 Hollowell also argues that the affidavit was not supported by probable cause because Detective Broady misrepresented the mathematical likelihood of a sibling relationship between Dennis and Unknown Male #1. Specifically, although Hollowell acknowledges that Detective Broady properly quoted the following language from the lab’s certificate: “The probability of relationship (assuming a prior probability of 0.5) [was] 98.8880%[,]” Hollowell contends that Detective Broady misstated the evidence when he claimed that “[t]his le[ft] only a 1.112% possibility that they [were] not full siblings while the 1.112% i