Back to Articles

Indiana Court of Appeals Reverses Exclusion of Witness Testimony in State of Indiana v. Scott L. Manges (Aug. 27, 2026)

TL;DR:

  • The Indiana Court of Appeals held that a trial court abused its discretion by excluding a key witness's testimony as a discovery sanction for failing to provide a requested audio recording. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The ruling also rejected a due process challenge to the state’s failure to preserve the recording, so long as bad faith is not shown. Practically, litigators should rethink the use of extreme sanctions and focus on preserving and presenting alternative avenues to test credibility when discovery compliance falters. This decision, issued August 27, 2026, underscores that sanctions should be proportionate and that defenses can still pursue impeachment and deposition avenues when the most severe remedy is unwarranted. (public.courts.in.gov)

What happened

In State of Indiana v. Scott L. Manges, the Court of Appeals of Indiana addressed a discovery dispute arising in a criminal case. The defense sought an audio/visual recording of a victim’s police interview that the trial court had ordered the State to produce. The State later informed the court that no such recording existed, having conducted a thorough search of police files. Nevertheless, the trial court sanctioned the State by excluding the victim’s testimony at trial. The issue on appeal was whether that evidentiary sanction was an appropriate remedy for the State’s failure to disclose the recording. The Indiana appellate panel concluded that excluding the victim’s testimony was an abuse of discretion and reversed the sanction, remanding for further proceedings. The decision was issued August 27, 2026. (public.courts.in.gov)

Legal standard and key holding

The court grounded its analysis in well-established Indiana authorities governing discovery sanctions. Trial Rule 37 authorizes remedies for discovery violations and allows courts to sanction conduct that violates discovery orders, but the court warned that exclusion of evidence is an extreme remedy that should be employed only when justified by the circumstances and the degree of prejudice. The panel cited State v. Lyons and related Indiana precedents to emphasize that sanctions must be proportionate to the violation and that judges should consider less drastic measures before excluding critical testimony. The court further explained that the State’s failure to preserve the recording, where no exculpatory material was shown, did not automatically violate due process unless the defendant demonstrates bad faith. The court ultimately held that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding Victim’s testimony and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion. (public.courts.in.gov)

The decision provides a practical articulation of when and how discovery sanctions may be reversed on appeal. It reinforces that, even in serious cases, courts should be cautious about “ nuclear option” sanctions like excluding the sole or primary witness, particularly where alternative remedies (deposition, cross-examination, or impeachment with other evidence) remain available. The court’s approach signals a bias toward ensuring the defendant’s right to a fair trial while resisting permissive, blanket denial of evidence solely for discovery missteps. (public.courts.in.gov)

Practical implications for trial teams

  • Rethink extreme sanctions: The Indiana decision makes clear that trial teams cannot rely on exclusion as a default remedy for discovery noncompliance, especially when the evidence at issue is the sole or central witness. Attorneys should push for proportional remedies and preserve avenues to test credibility through deposition or impeachment rather than automatically seeking to bar testimony entirely. (public.courts.in.gov)
  • Emphasize preservation duties and bad faith standards: The court’s analysis highlights that a failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not itself trigger a due process violation unless bad faith is shown. Practitioners should document preservation efforts and be prepared to argue bad faith or prejudice if it exists, but also to differentiate between potentially useful and highly exculpatory material. This distinction can influence strategy on cross-examination and on developing impeachment theory. (public.courts.in.gov)
  • Leverage depositions and impeachment: The opinion notes that even when a recorded interview is not produced, other sources (such as depositional testimony or cross-examination of witnesses who observed credibility cues) can substitute for the missing record. Trial teams should plan to depose key witnesses or rely on credible impeachment materials when sanctions limit live testimony. (public.courts.in.gov)
  • Guardrails for discovery practice: For trial teams, the decision reinforces the importance of documenting compliance with discovery orders and of proposing concrete, available remedies early in the case. When a material item cannot be produced, counsel should propose alternatives promptly rather than pursuing an all-or-nothing sanction. (public.courts.in.gov)

Strategic actions for practitioners now

  • Audit discovery plans: Before trial, audit all discovery orders and corresponding responses to identify any missing or hard-to-locate materials. Prepare a clear record of efforts to locate or reconstruct such materials and consider preemptive motions to adopt alternative discovery measures that preserve the defendant’s right to challenge credibility.
  • Prepare impeachment playbooks: Build a practical impeachment plan for key witnesses, including potential sources of consistency or inconsistency in statements, prior statements, or collateral materials that can be used effectively if the primary documentary evidence is unavailable.
  • Use deposition as a fallback: If crucial materials cannot be produced, secure a deposition of the witness or other relevant individuals as a strategic alternative to protect the defendant’s rights and to maintain avenues for effective cross-examination at trial.
  • Integrate Objection Academy training: Objection Academy’s resources, including objection drills, evidence training, and courtroom simulation tools, can help trial teams sharpen cross-examination and impeachment techniques for witnesses whose key materials are missing or incomplete. Focused practice on preserving credibility challenges during deposition and trial can translate into more controlled, persuasive courtroom advocacy when sanctions play a role in shaping the evidence landscape.

Objection Academy relevance

In matters where discovery disputes and sanctions can influence trial readiness, disciplined objection handling and rapid courtroom adaptation are essential. Objection Academy’s practice drills around objections to credibility, authentication, and admissibility support trial teams as they adjust to sanction-driven gaps in evidence. By integrating targeted objection training and scenario-based practice, litigators can maintain control over the courtroom narrative even when a key piece of discovery is delayed or unavailable.

Conclusion

The State of Indiana v. Scott L. Manges decision of August 27, 2026, offers a concrete reminder that sanctions for discovery violations must be carefully calibrated. Excluding the testimony of a victim in a one-witness case, when lesser remedies remain available, risks an appellate reversal and a remand for further proceedings. For trial teams, the takeaway is clear: preserve, document, and pursue proportionate relief; prepare robust impeachment and deposition strategies; and lean on practical trial-readiness resources to stay prepared for a shifting evidentiary landscape. As states and, at times, federal courts continue to refine discovery practices, the prudence of maintaining a comprehensive, well-documented discovery plan remains a cornerstone of effective trial advocacy. (public.courts.in.gov)

Sources

Note: This timely development is relevant to trial teams navigating discovery disputes, sanctions, and evidentiary strategy in both state and federal contexts. Objection Academy resources can support practical preparation for handling similar scenarios in the courtroom.

More Legal InsightsExplore MCLE Eligibility