Tony Clark, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Tony Clark was convicted of Level 6 felony sexual battery for grabbing and squeezing the vaginal area of an unsuspecting 16-year-old girl. On appeal, Clark claims the State failed to prove the girl was forcefully compelled to submit to the touching, as required by Indiana's sexual battery statute. The evidence, however, shows that the girl submitted to Clark's touching due to the force of Clark grabbing her vaginal area and the debilitating fear it caused. Finding this evidence sufficient to prove forceful compulsion, we affirm.

Facts

[2] Sixteen-year-old A.L. was browsing an aisle of books at the Hammond Public Library when a man, later identified as Clark, came walking down the aisle. As Clark passed behind A.L., his arm brushed against A.L.’s buttocks. Clark then proceeded to the other end of the aisle and turned the corner. But ten to twenty seconds later, Clark came walking back. This time, as he passed behind A.L., Clark reached underneath A.L.’s skirt, grabbed her “vaginal area,” and squeezed for around five seconds. Tr. Vol. II, p. 143. He then let go and walked away without ever saying a word.

[3] When Clark initially brushed against A.L.’s buttocks, A.L. figured it was an “accident” and “didn't think anything of it.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 142. But the incident was “weird” enough that A.L. was “a little put on edge” when Clark came walking back down the aisle. Id. at 151. And when Clark grabbed A.L.’s vaginal area from behind, A.L. became debilitatingly “scared.” Id. at 145. She “froze” as if she was “glued to the floor” and “couldn't speak.” Id. She could only face the bookshelf she had been browsing moments before while Clark squeezed her vaginal area without resistance.

[4] After Clark let go and walked away, A.L. quickly found her mother, told her what had happened, and pointed out Clark as he was leaving the library. A.L.’s mother reported the incident to a library staff member, who called the police. A responding police officer soon apprehended Clark not far from the library. And the State charged Clark with Level 6 felony sexual battery. A jury found Clark guilty as charged, and after entering judgment of conviction, the trial court sentenced Clark to two years in the Indiana Department of Correction.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Clark appeals only his conviction, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to prove he committed sexual battery. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009). We consider only the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from such evidence. Id. We will affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative value from which a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[6] The State charged Clark with Level 6 felony sexual battery under Indiana Code § 35-42-4-8(a)(1)(A). Thus, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clark, “with intent to arouse or satisfy [his] own sexual desires or the sexual desires of another person,” touched A.L. when she was “compelled to submit to the touching by force or the imminent threat of force.” Ind. Code § 35-42-4-8(a)(1)(A). Clark argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to prove he forcefully compelled A.L. to submit to his touching. We disagree.

[7] Forceful compulsion “need not be physical or violent” and “may be implied from the circumstances.” Scott-Gordon v. State, 579 N.E.2d 602, 604 (Ind. 1991). But here, the record contains direct evidence that Cole's act of grabbing A.L. forcefully compelled her submission. Under direct examination by the State, A.L. testified as follows:

Q. And did he just place his hand in that area or did you feel something else?

A. He placed his hand there, but he also kind of grabbed me. (Indicating)

Q. Okay. You made a hand motion. Could you show us that again?

A. Yeah, he kind of like put his fingers up when he grabbed me. (Indicating)

Q. Was he grabbing you from the front or from the rear?

A. From behind. He was grabbing my skirt from behind.

Q. Okay. Did he make any contact with any other part of your body?

A: No.

Tr. Vol. II, p. 144.

[8] We further observe that “it is the victim's perspective, not the assailant's, from which the presence or absence of forceful compulsion is to be determined.” Tobias v. State, 666 N.E.2d 68, 72 (Ind. 1996). Here, A.L.’s perception of the incident was defined by the debilitating fear she experienced when Clark grabbed her vaginal area. Because A.L. could not resist Clark thereafter—as he squeezed her vaginal area for five seconds—a factfinder could reasonably determine that A.L. was forcefully compelled to submit to the touching.

[9] Affirmed.

Weissmann, Judge.

Judges Pyle and Felix concur. Pyle, J., and Felix, J., concur.