William E. Spears, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] William Spears molested his stepdaughter G.M. on multiple occasions throughout her childhood. G.M. later disclosed these incidents, and Spears was found guilty of child molestation and sexual misconduct with a minor. Spears now appeals, raising one issue for our review: Whether the State presented sufficient evidence at trial to support his convictions.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] G.M.’s parents separated in 2011 when she was approximately five years old, and her parents shared custody. G.M. spent time living with each parent, often alternating each week. When G.M. was approximately 10 years old, Spears, who was dating G.M.’s mother (“Mother”), moved into the townhouse in Indianapolis where G.M. and Mother lived. At that time, Spears's two daughters and one of his daughters’ girlfriend also moved into the townhouse. Spears also has a son who would stay at the townhouse some weekends.

[4] One day shortly after Spears moved into the townhouse, G.M. was sitting on the couch in the living room with Mother and Spears when Spears began “touching [G.M.] on [her] private parts.” Tr. Vol. II at 129. Spears was using one hand to rub G.M.’s clitoris while using the other hand to masturbate. While this was happening, Mother watched and began masturbating too. G.M. eventually said she “had to go to the bathroom” and “ran into the bathroom.” Id. at 132.

[5] Another incident occurred when G.M. was in her bedroom and Spears made her come downstairs into the living room where he was sitting alone. There, Spears started watching porn on his laptop and began masturbating with G.M. in the living room. G.M. did not leave because “whenever [she] didn't stay, [Spears] would get angry.” Tr. Vol. II at 134. Then, Spears got closer to G.M., started touching her, and took her clothes off. Spears began digitally penetrating G.M.’s vagina with one hand while masturbating with the other; Spears eventually stopped when he ejaculated. Spears would turn his ejaculation into a “game” where he would place a paper towel on the floor and make G.M. guess “if it would be short, middle[,] or farther.” Id. at 136–37. G.M. would go along with it and guess because she “didn't want [Spears] to be angry at [Mother].” Id. at 137.

[6] Another incident occurred at the townhouse with G.M. and Spears alone in the living room. Again, Spears was watching porn on his laptop when he began touching G.M. and taking her clothes off. Spears started rubbing G.M.’s clitoris and then performed oral sex on her. The incident ended when Spears made G.M. play the paper towel game.

[7] In 2020 or 2021, G.M., Mother, Spears, and one of Spears's daughters moved to a house on Furman Avenue in Indianapolis; Spears's son continued to visit on weekends. One day at the new house, when G.M. was 14 or 15 years old, she was sitting in a chair in the living room when Spears began “jerking off on the couch.” Tr. Vol. II at 143. G.M. wanted to walk away but did not because she “was kind of afraid of something.” Id. at 144. Spears asked G.M. to sit on the couch and she did so. Then, Spears took off G.M.’s clothes, rubbed her clitoris, digitally penetrated her, and performed oral sex on her. Spears again finished by playing the paper towel game, and G.M. ran to her bedroom and started crying.

[8] When G.M. was 15 or 16 years old, she was at the Furman house in the living room with Mother and Spears. Spears and Mother allowed G.M. to drink nine carbonated alcoholic beverages. After drinking the alcohol, everything became “really fuzzy” for G.M., but she remembers being carried from the living room to Spears and Mother's bedroom. Tr. Vol. II at 147. Once in the bedroom, G.M. remembers sitting naked on top of Spears's face while Mother was having intercourse with Spears. The next morning, Mother asked G.M. if she remembered anything from the previous night, and when G.M. said that she did not remember anything, Mother “looked kind of relieved.” Id. at 149. G.M. initially told Mother that she did not remember because she “didn't know if it was real or not and [she] was hoping it wasn't.” Id.

[9] On July 8, 2021, G.M. was staying at Father's house, and she and Father were having a discussion because G.M. had made a Facebook post that made Father angry. Father took G.M.’s phone away and told her that his girlfriend had the right to discipline her and so did Spears as her stepfather. G.M. responded by saying that Spears is “not allowed to discipline [her] and she got upset and started crying.” Tr. Vol. II at 165. G.M. “snapped” and told Father “almost everything” about Spears's sexual abuse because she did not want to go back to Mother's house. Id. at 149. Father reported the incidents to the Indiana Department of Child Services the same day.

[10] The State charged Spears with two counts of child molesting as Level 1 felonies,¹ one count of child molesting as a Level 4 felony,² and one count of sexual misconduct with a minor as a Level 5 felony ³ . A jury found Spears guilty as charged, and the trial court issued an aggregate sentence of 40 years of incarceration and 6 years of probation. Spears now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

The State Presented Sufficient Evidence to Support Spears's Convictions

[11] Spears argues that the State presented insufficient evidence at trial to support his four convictions. Our Supreme Court has explained our standard of review for such a claim as follows:

Sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims trigger a deferential standard of review in which we “neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility, instead reserving those matters to the province of the jury.” Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 570 (Ind. 2018). A conviction is supported by sufficient evidence if “there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015). In conducting that review, we consider only the evidence that supports the jury's determination, not evidence that might undermine it. Teising v. State, 226 N.E.3d 780, 783 (Ind. 2024).

Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024).

[12] Spears does not argue that the State failed to prove any specific element of the charged offenses. Rather, Spears challenges all four convictions together, claiming the State presented insufficient evidence because G.M.’s testimony was incredibly dubious. “A conviction can be sustained on only the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, even when that witness is the victim.” Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012) (citing Ferrell v. State, 565 N.E.2d 1070, 1072–73 (Ind. 1991)). However, under the incredible dubiosity rule, we will “impinge upon the jury's duty to judge witness credibility ‘where a sole witness presents inherently contradictory testimony which is equivocal or the result of coercion and there is a complete lack of circumstantial evidence of the appellant's guilt.’ ” Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 755 (Ind. 2015) (emphases removed) (quoting Tillman v. State, 642 N.E.2d 221, 223 (Ind. 1994)). Our Supreme Court has explained that “while incredible dubiosity provides a standard that is ‘not impossible’ to meet, it is a ‘difficult standard to meet, [and] one that requires great ambiguity and inconsistency in the evidence.’ ” Id. at 756 (quoting Edwards v. State, 753 N.E.2d 618, 622 (Ind. 2001)) (alteration in original). “The testimony must be so convoluted and/or contrary to human experience that no reasonable person could believe it.” Id. (quoting Edwards, 753 N.E.2d at 622.)

[13] Spears claims that G.M.’s testimony about the molestation and the sexual misconduct is contrary to human experience and no reasonable person could believe it. Spears claims that the other individuals living at the townhouse “necessarily would have been coming and going from and moving around inside the house” when the molestations occurred. Appellant's Br. at 14. However, G.M. testified that only her mother and Spears were in the townhouse at that time of the first incident and no one other than Spears was in the living room during the other two incidents at the townhouse. Spears also claims that G.M. had motive to fabricate the story, claiming that she made up the allegations to avoid being disciplined by Father. The record indicates that G.M. got upset and started crying when Father mentioned that, as her stepfather, Spears had the right to discipline her. Further, G.M. stated that she told her Father because she had “snapped” and could not go back to Mother's house anymore. While Spears may have difficulty believing no one else observed the offenses or that G.M. may have a motive to fabricate, neither of these allegations convinces us that the testimony was contradictory to human experience or coerced in any way. We conclude that G.M.’s testimony was not incredibly dubious and the State provided sufficient evidence at trial to support Spears's convictions.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a)(1).

2.   Id. § 35-42-4-3(b).

3.   Id. § 35-42-4-9(a).

Felix, Judge.

Judges Pyle and Weissmann concur. Pyle, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.