04/14/2026
On March 1, 2025, at approximately 9:00 pm, Hamilton County Sheriffâs Deputies were dispatched to a crash on Florida Road near Geist Park. Occupying the crashed vehicle were Mason Alexander, the passenger, and Trey Williams, the driver. Mason Alexander was pronounced deceased at the scene of the crash, while Willaims was transported to the hospital.
Investigators determined that Williams attempted to pass another vehicle, but was forced to veer back into his lane due to an oncoming vehicle approaching. As a result of Williamsâ driving maneuvers, the vehicle he was operating left the roadway, entered a ditch, and then struck a tree. In the area where Williams attempted to pass the vehicle in front of him, double yellow lines indicated a no passing zone. Williams was also exceeding the posted speed limit.
Because Williams was only 17 years of age at the time of the crash, Indiana law required proceedings to begin in juvenile court. A Petition Alleging Delinquency was filed against Willaims on May 2, 2025. On the same date, the State filed a Motion for Waiver of Juvenile Jurisdiction, seeking to have Williams tried as an adult in the best interest of the safety and welfare of the community.
On May 29, 2025, a waiver hearing was conducted by the juvenile court. After considering the evidence presented at the hearing, the juvenile court waived juvenile jurisdiction in the case. As a result, formal adult criminal charges were filed against Williams on June 2, 2025. Those charges included Reckless Homicide, a Level 5 felony; Reckless Driving, a Class A misdemeanor; and False Government Identification, a Class A Misdemeanor.
The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is from one to six years, with an advisory sentence of three years. Courts (and prosecutors) are bound by the State and Federal Constitutions, as well as Indiana Code, in imposing (or seeking) sentences upon those convicted of crimes. Courts consider a number of potential aggravating and mitigating circumstances in arriving at an appropriate sentence, and they consider evidence presented by both the State and Defendant in making sentencing determinations.
Based on the plea agreement between the State and Defendant in this case, the Court (if it accepted the plea agreement) was obligated to impose a total sentence of six years. Of those six years, the Court had discretion to impose between zero and four years executed (i.e. time served in prison, on work release, or on home detention). However, the Court could impose no more than three years (the advisory sentence) in prison.
On April 14, 2026, Trey Williams entered a plea of guilty to the lead count of Reckless Homicide, a Level 5 Felony. The Court accepted the plea and proceeded to sentencing. Williams received a total sentence of six years, as required by the plea agreement. Of those six years, three were ordered to be served at the Indiana Department of Correction, one was ordered to be served as a direct commitment to Hamilton County Community Corrections Work Release Program, and two years were ordered to be served on probation. At the conclusion of the hearing, Williams was remanded to custody of the Hamilton County Sheriff for ex*****on of his sentence. Based on the law and the plea agreement made in this case, Williams received the maximum sentence allowable under the plea agreement.
We recognize that this case has drawn significant interest and evoked intense emotions. We also recognize that, in cases such as this, there is no sentence which can possibly undo what was done. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with all of those impacted by this terrible, completely avoidable tragedy.
Fatal car accidents are, unfortunately, far too common. In many cases, they are just that â accidents â and do not meet the legal standard for criminal charges like Reckless Homicide. Each year, our office meets with grieving families who are understandably frustrated and heartbroken when charges cannot be pursued. Those conversations are never easy. In this case, however, the evidence supported criminal charges. We were able to move forward and hold the driver accountable, bringing a measure of justice to the family of Mason Alexander.
In closing, we wish to note that prosecutors are charged with special responsibilities under the Rules of Professional Conduct. Among those requirements is that we refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused. In addition, we cannot allow outside influence to sway our pursuit of justice in any given case. That pursuit must be based on the law and the facts, not on public pressure or social media campaigns.
