WOODRICK v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Keela M. Woodrick appeals her conviction for Level 6 felony theft, arguing that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a mistrial. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2022, James Young began construction on a new house in La Porte. Due to theft and vandalism at the construction site, Young installed security cameras around the property. Ashley Rancatore and her husband, Matthew Rancatore, had a storage unit nearby. On December 30, 2022, they were at their storage unit with Woodrick and Jessica Meadows. Woodrick told the group about a house that was under construction and said that there were tools and materials there that they could sell. That afternoon, the four of them went to Young's construction site and took various tools and cleaning supplies.

[3] The next time Young went to the construction site, he noticed things were missing. He reported the missing items to police and estimated that they were worth over $1,000. Young provided the footage from his security cameras to the police. Captain Andrew Hynek of the La Porte County Sheriff's Office recognized Matthew and knew about the Rancatores’ storage unit because it had been the subject of an unrelated investigation. Captain Hynek obtained a search warrant for the storage unit. Young was present with Captain Hynek for the search and identified some of his property in the unit. A few days later, Captain Hynek brought Ashley in for an interview (Matthew was in jail at the time for another offense). Ashley named Woodrick and Meadows, and police confirmed that Woodrick and Meadows were the individuals in the security footage from December 30.

[4] Police obtained a search warrant for Woodrick's home. While officers were executing the warrant, Matthew called Woodrick from jail, and “they discussed ․ that the police were there, that they were going to be in trouble, and ․ these construction tools and whether [the police] were going to recover them.” Tr. Vol. 3 p. 16. Police recovered multiple items of Young's property from Woodrick's house, including hand tools, power tools, and new interior doors still in their boxes. Following the search, a warrant was issued for Woodrick's arrest. Woodrick contacted Captain Hynek on January 31, 2023, to turn herself in, and he interviewed her at the sheriff's office that night. At the time, Woodrick was wearing the same sweatshirt that Young's security cameras had captured her wearing on December 30.

[5] The State charged Woodrick with Level 6 felony theft for stealing “[m]iscellaenous [sic] construction tools” on December 30. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 16. The State later charged her under a separate cause number with Level 6 felony theft for the doors, which had been taken from Young's property on a different day. See Cause No. 46C01-2303-F6-336. Woodrick pled guilty to Class A misdemeanor theft in that case in August 2023 and was sentenced to one year suspended to probation.

[6] A jury trial was held in the initial case in June 2025. Still photos of Young's surveillance footage were admitted into evidence, and Young and Captain Hynek each identified Woodrick in several of the photos. Young testified that when the police executed the search warrant at Woodrick's home, they “recovered truckloads of [his] belongings,” including “interior doors still in the box.” Tr. Vol. 2 p. 182. Defense counsel immediately moved for a mistrial, arguing that because Woodrick pled guilty to theft of the doors in a separate case, Young's reference to the doors amounted to improper character evidence prohibited by Evidence Rule 404(b). The State responded that it “did not expect” Young to mention the doors in his answer, but the error could be corrected with an instruction and admonishment to the jury. Id. The trial court denied Woodrick's motion and admonished the jury as follows:

At this point, I'm going to let you know that this case is about an alleged theft of tools and only tools. Any reference by any witness to anything other than a theft -- alleged theft of tools is irrelevant to this case. You must not give any mind to that. You must disregard that. You must do that in your deliberations.

Id. at 187.

[7] Captain Hynek recounted Matthew's jail call to Woodrick and his interview with Woodrick after she turned herself in. He testified that Woodrick admitted she'd gone to Young's property more than once, but she said she believed Matthew had permission from his uncle to be there. Then, Captain Hynek recalled, he'd asked her “if she thought it was odd that they would go to this location with permission after hours on weekends.” Id. at 239. Defense counsel again moved for a mistrial because the December 30 theft took place in the afternoon, but Captain Hynek referenced Woodrick being at the property at night, and “[t]his is now two separate instances where the jury's been made aware she committed another criminal offense.” Id. The court denied the motion, finding that Captain Hynek's statement wasn't evidence of a crime or wrongdoing prohibited by Rule 404(b) because Woodrick's “mere presence at this property, when she believed she had permission [to be] there, isn't a crime,” and she hadn't been charged with trespassing on the property. Id. at 250. The court admonished the jury that “any testimony from any witness that refers to the Defendant being at this property at night or on weekends is completely irrelevant and you cannot consider it. Disregard it.” Tr. Vol. 3 p. 9.

[8] The jury found Woodrick guilty of Level 6 felony theft. The trial court imposed a two-year sentence: 270 days executed (90 days in jail followed by 180 days on work release) and 456 days suspended to probation.

[9] Woodrick now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Woodrick contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a mistrial. “Because the trial court evaluates first-hand the relevant facts and circumstances at issue and their impact on the jury, it is in the best position to evaluate whether a mistrial is warranted.” Weisheit v. State, 26 N.E.3d 3, 15 (Ind. 2015), reh'g denied. Accordingly, we review the denial of a motion for a mistrial for an abuse of discretion. Id.

[11] Woodrick twice moved for a mistrial based on Evidence Rule 404(b), which provides that “[e]vidence 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.” While the general rule is that evidence of a defendant's prior criminal history is highly prejudicial and should not be admitted, “the grant of a motion for mistrial is an extreme remedy that is warranted only when less severe remedies will not satisfactorily correct the error.” Owens v. State, 937 N.E.2d 880, 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (quotation omitted), reh'g denied, trans. denied. In determining whether a mistrial is warranted, we consider whether the defendant was placed in a position of grave peril to which they should not have been subjected. Id. “[T]he gravity of the peril is determined by the probable persuasive effect on the jury's decision.” Id. Because “[a] timely and accurate admonishment is presumed to cure any error in the admission of evidence,” “reversible error is seldom found when the trial court has admonished the jury to disregard a statement made during the proceedings.” Id. (quotation omitted).

[12] Here, Young testified that the items recovered from Woodrick's home included “interior doors still in the box,” although the doors were the subject of a separate theft charge to which Woodrick had already pled guilty. Later, Captain Hynek testified that Woodrick admitted she'd gone to Young's property multiple times, and he referenced her being there “after hours on weekends,” even though the case only concerned the theft on the afternoon of December 30, 2022. Woodrick acknowledges that these statements were inadvertent.¹ At no other time during trial did anyone reference theft of items other than tools or Woodrick being at the property any time other than the afternoon of December 30. And after each statement, the trial court admonished the jury to disregard it. See id. (finding that defendant failed to demonstrate grave peril where reference to prior bad acts “was isolated, vague, brief, and ․ inadvertent,” and trial court admonished the jury to disregard it).

[13] Additionally, there was overwhelming evidence to establish Woodrick's guilt. Ashley testified that Woodrick told her, Matthew, and Meadows about Young's construction site and that there were tools and materials there that they could sell. Young's security cameras captured the group at the site on the afternoon of December 30, 2022. Still photos of the surveillance footage were admitted into evidence, and Ashley, Young, and Captain Hynek all identified Woodrick in the photos. Captain Hynek also testified that while police were executing the search warrant at Woodrick's home, Matthew called her from jail, and “they discussed ․ that the police were there, that they were going to be in trouble, and ․ these construction tools and whether [the police] were going to recover them.” Police recovered a variety of Young's hand tools and power tools from Woodrick's home. And when Woodrick turned herself in, she was wearing the same sweatshirt that Young's security cameras had captured her wearing on December 30. Given the overwhelming evidence of Woodrick's guilt and the trial court's admonishments, Young's and Captain Hynek's isolated statements likely had little persuasive effect on the jury's decision. See James v. State, 613 N.E.2d 15, 22-23 (Ind. 1993) (holding that overwhelming evidence of guilt and trial court's prompt admonishment were sufficient to cure any prejudice resulting from evidence of criminal history). Woodrick has failed to show that these statements placed her in a position of grave peril. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Woodrick's motion for a mistrial.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Although not required to preserve the error for our review, we note that the inadvertent statements here might have been avoided if Woodrick had filed a pretrial motion in limine to prevent the State from introducing evidence of her other theft case or her presence at Young's property at times other than the afternoon of December 30, 2022. See Owens, 937 N.E.2d at 895 (“Motions in limine are useful tools to prevent the admission of evidence of prior bad acts pursuant to Indiana Rule of Evidence 404(b)[.]”).

Vaidik, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Scheele, J., concur.