Full Opinion

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(E), the trial court and parties shall not take any action in reliance upon this Opinion until it is certified. IN THE Court of Appeals of Indiana Brent M. Bredhold, FILED Oct 30 2026, 9:00 am Appellant-Defendant CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff October 30, 2026 Court of Appeals Case No. 25A-CR-2899 Appeal from the Vanderburgh Circuit Court The Honorable Ryan D. Hatfield, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 82C01-2408-F1-5079 Opinion by Judge Pyle Judges May and Scheele concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-2899 | October 30, 2026 Page 1 of 18 Pyle, Judge. Statement of the Case [1] After twelve-year-old A.B. (“A.B.”) died from diabetic ketoacidosis (“DKA”),1 the State charged her father, Brent Bredhold (“Bredhold”), with Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent. A jury convicted Bredhold of the lesser included offense of Level 3 felony neglect of a dependent.2 Bredhold now appeals and argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence. Concluding that any error in the admission of certain evidence was harmless, we affirm Bredhold’s conviction. [2] We affirm. Issue Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence. 1 DKA “is the medical condition of insufficient insulin.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 99). 2 IND. CODE § 35-46-1-4. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-2899 | October 30, 2026 Page 2 of 18 Facts [3] The facts most favorable to the judgment reveal that forty-year-old Bredhold and his wife (“Mother”) are the parents of daughter A.B., who was born in October 2011.3 In March 2020, when A.B. was eight years old, she was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. [4] Following her diagnosis, A.B. and her parents were provided with education about the disease. Specifically, diabetes is an autoimmune disease wherein the body’s immune system creates antibodies that attack the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas. Insulin is an important hormone because it helps the body use sugar as an energy source. If the body lacks the necessary amount of insulin, the sugar sits in the blood and causes high blood sugar. In addition, if the body cannot use sugar as an energy source, the body turns its attention to alternative sources of energy, including fat tissue. When fat tissue is broken down to be used as an energy source, it leaves behind acids, which are called ketones. As the ketones build up in the blood, a diabetic is at risk of developing DKA, which is potentially fatal. [5] A.B. and her family were also provided with education regarding how to manage A.B.’s diabetes. Specifically, to manage her diabetes, A.B. needed to take insulin, including long-acting insulin (“long-acting insulin”), which is 3 Bredhold and Mother are also the parents of a teenaged son (“A.B.’s Brother”) and a three-year-old daughter. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-2899 | October 30, 2026 Page 3 of 18 taken once a day, and rapid-acting insulin (“rapid-acting insulin”), which is taken multiple times a day. [6] Long-acting insulin lasts for about twenty-four hours and is taken at the same time each day. The purpose of long-acting insulin is to provide a “sprinkle of insulin in the body at all times because all of us, our own body is constantly making a little bit of insulin to keep our blood sugars steady.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 132). Long-acting insulin is “very important[,]” and it is “absolutely necessary” to take it every day. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 133). Most diabetic children take it in the evening. If a child misses several days of long-acting insulin, her blood sugars are probably chronically high, and chronically high blood sugars can lead to organ damage and death. [7] Rapid-acting insulin works more quickly and has a higher peak effect. Further, rapid-acting insulin mimics the body’s natural process of lowering blood sugar following the consumption of carbohydrates. In addition, rapid-acting insulin is used to correct for an elevated blood sugar by bringing higher blood sugar back down into a target range. [8] During the diabetes management education sessions, A.B. and her parents learned how to check A.B.’s blood sugar, how to count carbohydrates, how to determine how much insulin A.B. needed to take to cover for carbohydrates and correct for an elevated blood sugar, and how to check A.B.’s urine for ketones. A.B. and her parents also learned that the target for A.B.’s hemoglobin A1C, which is the average blood sugar for a three-month period, Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-2899 | October 30, 2026 Page 4 of 18 was 7% or lower. Further, the goal for A.B.’s blood sugar was 70 to 180. A.B.’s parents were included in the education process because A.B., who was a child, needed parental supervision. Specifically, because management of diabetes is complicated, it was important for A.B.’s parents to supervise her care. [9] In sum, during the education process, A.B. and her family learned that A.B. needed to take long-acting insulin every night. They also learned that A.B. needed to check her blood sugar a minimum of four times each day, including at mealtimes and before bedtime, and to count carbohydrates before each meal to determine how much rapid-acting insulin she needed to take. Specifically, before each meal, eight-year-old A.B. needed to determine how many carbohydrates she was going to eat at the meal, and she had to take one unit of insulin for every fourteen carbohydrates. For example, if A.B. was going to eat ninety-eight grams of carbohydrates for breakfast, she had to divide ninety-eight (the number of carbohydrates) by fourteen to determine the number of units of insulin that she needed to take. Under this scenario, she would need to take seven units of insulin (ninety-eight divided by fourteen). In addition, if her blood sugar was high, she also had to calculate a correction dose of insulin. The formula for a blood sugar correction is to subtract 120 from the current blood sugar and divide that figure by fifty. Thus, if her blood sugar was 500, she would have to subtract 120, which would be 380. Then she would have to divide the 380 by fifty, which would be 7.6. She would then have to round up that 7.6 to eight units of insulin. Thereafter, A.B. had to add the seven units of Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-2899 | October 30, 2026 Page 5 of 18 insulin for the carbohydrates to the eight units of insulin necessary for the correction dose, which would result in an insulin dose of fifteen units. These calculations had to be made before every meal. [10] Following A.B.’s diagnosis, in August 2020, A.B. and her family met with pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Eric Chang (“Dr. Chang”). During the meeting, Dr. Chang reviewed type 1 diabetes with A.B. and her family and emphasized the importance of maintaining well-controlled diabetes for both short-term and long-term health. At that time, A.B. was experiencing the honeymoon period (“the honeymoon period”) of diabetes. Specifically, during the honeymoon period, it is easier to control diabetes because the body is likely to still have a little bit of insulin left. And, as the child begins to receive insulin, the leftover insulin in the body is also released, and blood sugars are much more within the goal range. At the time of A.B.’s initial visit with Dr. Chang, her hemoglobin A1C was 6%. [11] Following the August 2020 visit, Dr. Chang referred A.B. and her family to Megan Brown, the nurse practitioner in Dr. Chang’s Evansville office (“NP Brown”), for follow-up education and monitoring of A.B.’s diabetes. Specifically, A.B. met with NP Brown every three months so that NP Brown could check A.B.’s hemoglobin A1C. Bredhold accompanied A.B. to every office visit. During the visits, NP Brown also spent time re-educating A.B. and Bredhold on the management of A.B.’s diabetes. At every visit, NP Brown specifically discussed the importance of A.B. not missing any insulin injections, including the long-acting insulin injections, which are “kind of like that Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-2899 | October 30, 2026 Page 6 of 18 lifeline.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 190). NP Brown also reviewed with A.B. and Bredhold the necessary calculations for determining how much rapid-acting insulin A.B. needed at mealtimes. Because A.B. was not always able to correctly calculate her rapid-acting insulin dosages, NP Brown reminded Bredhold that he needed to supervise A.B.’s calculations. In addition, NP Brown reviewed with A.B. and Bredhold the long term effects of high blood sugar on the body, including damage to organs and DKA, which could be life-threatening. [12] In early 2021, following the honeymoon period, NP Brown began to see a rise in A.B.’s hemoglobin A1C. Specifically, in 2021 and 2022, A.B.’s hemoglobin A1C was 9%. A.B. told NP Brown that she was not taking her long-acting insulin once or twice a week. NP Brown attempted to strategize with Bredhold ways to remind A.B. to take her long-acting insulin, such as setting alarms and parental supervision. In addition, NP Brown emphasized to Bredhold the importance of a parent supervising the management of A.B.’s diabetes because A.B. lacked the consistent ability to properly calculate her doses of insulin. [13] In June 2023, A.B.’s hemoglobin A1C increased to 11.2%, which suggested that A.B. “live[d] chronically at a high blood sugar[,]” and was at a higher risk of DKA. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 153). In October 2023, A.B. and her family were referred to a pediatric psychologist, Dr. Sandy Bowersox (“Dr. Bowersox”), to establish routines so that A.B. could better manage her diabetes. [14] In November 2023, Dr. Bowersox met with twelve-year-old A.B. and Bredhold, who both identified that it was difficult for A.B. to remember to take her long- Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-2899 | October 30, 2026 Page 7 of 18 acting insulin at night. From November 2023 through early July 2024, Dr. Bowersox had thirteen outpatient visits with A.B., and Bredhold attended twelve of those visits. Dr. Bowersox worked with A.B. and Bredhold to establish a bedtime routine to include A.B. setting aside her cell phone, taking her long-acting insulin, and getting to bed at a reasonable hour. Specifically, Dr. Bowersox recommended that at 8:30 p.m., A.B. and a parent participate in a brief family activity to signal the beginning of the bedtime routine, which would include brushing her teeth, taking a shower, putting on her pajamas, and taking her long-acting insulin before going to bed. In addition, Dr. Bowersox suggested that A.B. choose a reward, such as being able to watch a video on her cell phone, for completing the bedtime routine, including taking her long-acting insulin. [15] During the ensuing months, A.B. twice arrived at her appointments with Dr. Bowersox with a self-reported blood sugar of greater than 600. In addition, A.B. reported to Dr. Bowersox that she was having “a lot of negative symptoms related to her diabetes.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 234). Bredhold “was always very attentive and listening to A.[B.], and . . . he expressed . . . empathy that he felt bad that she had to feel bad in that way.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 234). However, during the course of their visits with Dr. Bowersox, A.B. and Bredhold did not demonstrate success in establishing a routine to better manage A.B.’s diabetes. [16] In addition to meeting regularly with NP Brown and Dr. Bowersox, during the 2023-24 academic year, when twelve-year-old A.B. was in the sixth grade, she met twice daily with school nurse Debra Seib (“Nurse Seib”). Specifically, A.B. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-2899 | October 30, 2026 Page 8 of 18 met with Nurse Seib every morning when she got to school so that Nurse Seib could check A.B.’s blood sugar before A.B. had breakfast at school. A.B. and Nurse Seib would then calculate the carbohydrates that A.B. was going to eat for breakfast and determine her insulin dose based on her blood sugar and the carbohydrates that she was planning to eat. At lunch time, A.B. returned to Nurse Seib’s office to check her blood sugar, calculate the carbohydrates that she was going to eat for lunch, and again determine her insulin dose based on her blood sugar and the carbohydrates that she was planning to eat. [17] Generally, Nurse Seib calculated the insulin dose and had A.B. go over calculations with her. Because A.B. had difficulty doing the calculations, Nurse Seib got her a calculator, and they would use their calculators together. However, even with the calculator and daily practice, A.B. “had difficulty doing the math.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 13). [18] During the spring of 2024, Nurse Seib was concerned that more often than not A.B. arrived at school with an elevated blood sugar, which was typically greater than 300. Specifically, Nurse Seib was concerned that A.B. was not taking her long-acting insulin at night. When Nurse Seib asked A.B. if she had taken her long-acting insulin the previous night, A.B. would say that she did not know. In addition, Nurse Seib was concerned that A.B. reported that she frequently stayed up late at night and only got a couple hours of sleep. When Nurse Seib asked A.B. if she had eaten snacks during the night, A.B. responded that she could not remember. Nurse Seib was concerned because if A.B. had eaten late Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-2899 | October 30, 2026 Page 9 of 18 night snacks, she would have needed to cover those carbohydrates with a dose of insulin. [19] Based on her concerns, Nurse Seib sometimes tested A.B.’s urine for ketones. If the ketones were high, Nurse Seib would contact Bredhold, who was the parent at home during the day, and ask him to pick up A.B. from school. Specifically, Nurse Seib explained to Bredhold that she was concerned about A.B.’s elevated blood sugar damaging her body. When Nurse Seib asked Bredhold if A.B. had taken her long-acting insulin the previous night, Bredhold “just kind of look[ed] at [her][,]” and she never got an answer. (Tr. Vol. 3 at 18). Nurse Seib emphasized to Bredhold that, at a minimum, he needed to contact Dr. Chang and let Dr. Chang know that A.B.’s blood sugar was elevated in the mornings. [20] Nurse Seib also explained her concerns to A.B. Specifically, Nurse Seib told A.B. that she needed to be sure to take her long-acting insulin every night. In addition, when Nurse Seib asked A.B. if a parent was supervising her insulin, “[i]t became pretty apparent that . . . she . . . had no adult supervision with her insulin whatsoever.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 21). [21] On July 4, 2024, an Evansville Police Department officer (“the officer”), who had been dispatched to the Bredholds’ home for an unresponsive child, discovered that A.B. was deceased. A.B.’s Brother told the officer that the last time that he had seen A.B. alive had been the previous night between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m. when the family had eaten dinner. According to A.B.’s Brother, he Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-2899 | October 30, 2026 Page 10 of 18 had checked on A.B. at 3:00 p.m. that day and had seen her sleeping on the floor. When she had not woken up by 5:00 p.m., he and Mother had tested A.B.’s blood sugar, given her insulin, and realized that she was not breathing. Bredhold was working out of town when A.B. passed away. [22] Forensic pathologist Dr. James Jacobi (“Dr. Jacobi”) performed A.B.’s autopsy. During the autopsy, Dr. Jacobi observed that A.B.’s liver was four times its normal size and bright yellow. According to Dr. Jacobi, when a diabetic fails to take insulin, the diabetic’s blood sugar rises, and, as the body tries to process the extra sugar, the liver gets larger over a period of months or years. In addition, when looking at A.B.’s liver under a microscope, Dr. Jacobi noticed that A.B.’s liver contained glycogen, or sugar, which would indicate that A.B. was “a chronic diabetic with significant out of control diabetes.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 96). In addition, Dr. Jacobi also observed that A.B.’s heart was twice its normal size. According to Dr. Jacobi, poorly managed diabetes impairs the function of the heart, and the heart “tries to compensate by getting bigger to try to overcome its poorer function.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 99). [23] Dr. Jacobi determined that A.B.’s cause of death was DKA, “which is the medical condition of insufficient insulin.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 99). Further, according to Dr. Jacobi, A.B.’s enlarged liver and enlarged heart, which “represent[ed] chronic problems of diabetes[,]” were also contributing factors to her death. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 100). In other words, A.B.’s enlarged liver and enlarged heart “made it more difficult for her body to fight off the DKA[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 100). Further, a post-mortem lab report revealed that A.B.’s Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-2899 | October 30, 2026 Page 11 of 18 hemoglobin A1C was 10.5% and her blood sugar was 500. A hemoglobin A1C of 10% indicates that a child “has uncontrolled diabetes where [she is] persistently living at a blood sugar that is higher than the target range.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 145). [24] In August 2024, the State charged Bredhold with Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in death. Specifically, the charging information alleged that Bredhold had knowingly placed A.B. in a situation that had endangered her life and health and that had resulted in her death. [25] On September 9, 2025, Bredhold filed a motion in limine, wherein he asked the trial court to exclude, pursuant to Evidence Rule 404(b), evidence of his prior bad acts.4 The motion did not specify the prior bad acts that he was seeking to exclude from evidence. That same day, the State filed a motion in limine and a memorandum of law “in support of admission of evidence relating to [A.B.’s] prior hospitalizations.” (App. Vol. 2 at 62) (capitalization removed). At a hearing on the motions in limine, the State asked the trial court to allow it to admit evidence of A.B.’s prior hospitalizations, including three hospitalizations in 2022, two hospitalizations in 2023, and one hospitalization in 2024. Specifically, the State argued that evidence of A.B.’s prior hospitalizations went 4 Pursuant to Evidence Rule 404(b), evidence of “a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Evid. R. 404(b)(1). But such evidence “may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Evid. R. 404(b)(2). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-2899 | October 30, 2026 Page 12 of 18 “to knowledge because of [Bredhold], having gone through all of these hospitalizations, should have realized that A.[B.] had . . . uncontrolled diabetes and had consistently high blood sugars that put her at a greater risk of entering into a diabetic ketoacidosis event that would kill her.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 37). Bredhold responded that there was “a lot of other evidence available to the State to prove knowledge of the education as to the care and control of A.[B.]’s diabetes that ha[d] nothing to do with the particular hospitalizations.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 38-39). [26] Thereafter, the trial court told the State that it was not to “elicit testimony of prior hospitalizations to show a pattern of behavior and/or actions from [Bredhold].” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 41). The trial court explained that Bredhold’s “point and concern [was] well[-]taken that this particular issue cut[] very close to being able to allow [the State] to argue bad acts and/or argue the subsequent hospitalizations necessarily le[]d to bad actions of [Bredhold]. The Court believe[d] that would be a violation of 404[(b)][.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 41). However, the trial court further found that evidence of A.B.’s prior hospitalizations would be admissible pursuant to the knowledge, absence of mistake, and lack of accident exceptions to Evidence Rule 404(b). [27] During a three-day trial in September and October 2025, the jury heard the facts as set forth above during the testimony of Dr. Chang, NP Brown, Dr. Bowersox, and Nurse Seib. In addition, during the trial, Dr. Chang testified that A.B. had been hospitalized three times in 2022 for high blood sugar and DKA, two times in 2023, once for severe constipation and once for pancreatitis, Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-2899 | October 30, 2026 Page 13 of 18 and one time in 2024 for high blood sugar. According to Dr. Chang, Bredhold was present for all of A.B.’s hospitalizations. In addition, Dr. Wendy Woodword testified that she had treated A.B. when A.B. was hospitalized in October 2023 and that she had referred A.B. to Dr. Bowersox. Further, Dr. Bowersox testified that A.B. had been referred to her while A.B. was hospitalized in October 2023. [28] The jury convicted Bredhold of the lesser-included offense of Level 3 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in serious bodily injury. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Bredhold to nine (9) years in the Department of Correction. [29] Bredhold now appeals. Decision [30] Bredhold argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted certain evidence. He specifically contends that “the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the admission of A.B.’s prior hospitalizations and evidence of Bredhold’s failure to control A.B.’s diabetes because this evidence constitutes classic propensity evidence prohibited by Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b).” (Bredhold’s Br. 5) (emphasis removed). [31] As a preliminary matter, we note that, as set forth above, both before and during the trial, Bredhold objected to evidence of A.B.’s prior hospitalizations. However, he did not object to other evidence of Bredhold’s failure to control A.B.’s diabetes. Indeed, at the hearing on the motions in limine, Bredhold Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-2899 | October 30, 2026 Page 14 of 18 specifically told the trial court that there was “a lot of other evidence available to the State to prove knowledge of the education as to the care and control of A.[B.]’s diabetes that have nothing to do with the particular hospitalizations.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 38-39). [32] This Court has previously explained that “[a]ny grounds for objections not raised at trial are not available on appeal, and a party may not add to or change his grounds in the reviewing court.” Hunter v. State, 72 N.E.3d 928, 932 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. A claim of evidentiary error must first be presented to the trial court “in order to permit consideration of the objection and appropriate corrective action by the trial court.” Id. Because Bredhold did not object at trial to the evidence of his failure to manage A.B.’s diabetes, the trial court had no opportunity to rule on its admissibility. Therefore, Bredhold has waived appellate review of this argument. See id. (concluding that the defendant waived appellate review of an evidentiary argument that he had not raised at trial). Further, Bredhold has waived review of this issue for fundamental error because he did not argue fundamental error in his appellate brief. See Tandy v. State, 273 N.E.3d 1148, 1157 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (explaining that the defendant waived review of his evidentiary issue for fundamental error because he did not argue fundamental error in his appellate brief), trans. denied. [33] We now turn to Bredhold’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence of A.B.’s prior hospitalizations. Bredhold specifically contends that although the trial court determined that evidence of Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-2899 | October 30, 2026 Page 15 of 18 A.B.’s prior hospitalizations was admissible pursuant to the knowledge, absence of mistake, and lack of accident exceptions to Evidence Rule 404(b), none of those exceptions applied because he did not put his state of mind at issue. [34] The admission or exclusion of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will reverse only for an abuse of that discretion. Russell v. State, 234 N.E.3d 829, 858 (Ind. 2024), cert. denied. A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is clearly against the logic and the effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. [35] Here, however, we need not determine whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence of A.B.’s prior hospitalizations because any error in the admission of this evidence was harmless. The basic premise of the harmless error rule is “that a conviction may stand when the error had no bearing on the outcome of the case.” Durden v. State, 99 N.E.3d 645, 652 (Ind. 2018). Under Indiana Appellate Rule 66(A), an error is harmless “where its probable impact, in light of all the evidence in the case, is sufficiently minor so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties.” Under this probable impact test, Bredhold bears the burden of demonstrating how “the error’s probable impact undermines confidence in the outcome of the proceeding below.” Hayko v. State, 211 N.E.3d 483, 492 (Ind. 2023), reh’g denied, cert. denied. In determining whether Bredhold has met his burden, we consider the likely impact of improperly admitted evidence on a reasonable, average jury considering all evidence in the case. See id. If substantial independent evidence Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-2899 | October 30, 2026 Page 16 of 18 of guilt exists and our confidence in the outcome is not undermined, the error is harmless. Id. [36] Here, Bredhold cannot meet his burden on this record. Specifically, our review of the evidence reveals that during a three-day trial, the jury heard a plethora of evidence that twelve-year-old A.B. was unable to manage her diabetes as shown by her chronically high hemoglobin A1C and her inability to calculate her insulin doses without supervision. In addition, the jury heard evidence that Bredhold knew that A.B. was unable to manage her diabetes, that medical providers had repeatedly warned him that A.B. needed parental supervision to manage her diabetes, and that a failure to manage A.B.’s diabetes could result in her death. [37] Bredhold does not provide any reason to believe that evidence of A.B.’s prior hospitalizations “would have moved the needle.” Russell, 234 N.E.3d at 859 (concluding that appellant had provided no reason to believe that his proffered evidence “would have moved the needle”). In other words, in light of all the evidence in this case, the probable impact of any possible error in admitting the challenged evidence is sufficiently minor so as not to undermine our confidence in the outcome of this case. See Hayko, 211 N.E.3d at 492. Thus, even if the trial court had erred in admitting into evidence A.B.’s history of prior hospitalizations, the error would be harmless. See id. [38] Affirmed. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-2899 | October 30, 2026 Page 17 of 18 May, J., and Scheele, J., concur. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Matthew J. McGovern Fishers, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Caroline G. Templeton Assistant Section Chief, Criminal Appeals Indianapolis, Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-2899 | October 30, 2026 Page 18 of 18