Indiana Supreme Court Case No. 21S‑CR‑410 (DeWees v. State, 2022) holds that Indiana’s recent bail‑reform measures—especially the codification of Criminal Rule 26 and the use of evidence‑based risk assessments—expand, rather than limit, a trial court’s discretion when setting or modifying bail. The Court affirmed the denial of Sierra DeWees’s request for a bond reduction or conditional pretrial release.

🧾 Core holding

Trial courts retain broad discretion in bail decisions, and Indiana’s bail‑reform statutes strengthen that discretion. A court may deny bond reduction or conditional release when the record supports concerns about flight risk or danger to the community.

⚖️ Key legal principles

  • Criminal Rule 26 encourages courts to use validated, evidence‑based risk assessments (like the IRAS‑PAT) when evaluating pretrial release. These tools inform—but do not control—the court’s decision.
  • Statutory reforms (Ind. Code §§ 35‑33‑8‑0.5, etc.) aim to balance pretrial liberty with public safety, but they do not reduce judicial authority.
  • Appellate review remains deferential; the question is whether the trial court abused its discretion. The Supreme Court found no abuse.

🔍 Facts driving the decision

  • DeWees drove three men to a home where an armed burglary occurred, resulting in gunfire and injury. She was charged with a Level 2 felony for aiding burglary with a deadly weapon.
  • A pretrial assessment rated her moderate risk for re‑arrest and failure to appear.
  • The trial court set $50,000 cash‑only bail and later denied her request for reduction or conditional release.
  • The Supreme Court held that the trial court properly considered risk factors and public‑safety concerns.

🧠 Analytical significance

  • Judicial discretion strengthened: The Court clarified that bail reforms were not intended to create rigid rules or entitlements to release.
  • Risk‑based framework validated: Courts may rely on risk‑assessment tools but are not bound by them; discretion remains paramount.
  • Public‑safety emphasis: Even with moderate risk scores, courts may deny bond reduction when the underlying offense involves violence or weapons.
  • Appellate deference reaffirmed: The Supreme Court underscored that it will not second‑guess trial courts absent clear error.

📌 Practical impact

This case is now a leading authority in Indiana on how Criminal Rule 26 interacts with traditional bail discretion. It confirms that reforms do not create a presumption of release and that trial courts may continue to impose restrictive bail conditions when justified by the facts.