Dallas K. Williams, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Dallas K. Williams (“Williams”) was convicted after a bench trial of domestic battery ¹ as a Class A misdemeanor, interference with the reporting of a crime ² as a Class A misdemeanor, disorderly conduct ³ as a Class B misdemeanor, and resisting law enforcement ⁴ as a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to 365 days with thirty days executed and the rest suspended to probation. Williams appeals his convictions for domestic battery and disorderly conduct, arguing that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support those two convictions. Finding that sufficient evidence was presented, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Williams and Cindy Williams (“Cindy”) were married from January 2007 until the dissolution of their marriage in 2014. Despite no longer being married, they continued to live together in Pulaski County with their daughter, K.W., who was fourteen on the date at issue. The couple was experiencing a “down period” in their relationship around August 2021, and on August 16, 2021, their relationship was strained because Cindy believed Williams was “cheating on her.” Tr. Vol. 2 pp. 118, 198, 200. That day, Cindy became upset when Williams “[did] a donut in [the] yard.” Id. at 199. At some point in the argument, Williams kicked Cindy in the leg. State's Ex. 7 at 1:26–1:28. Cindy told Williams to leave the home and called the police. The police instructed Williams to stay away from the home.

[3] The following day, August 17, 2021, Williams returned to the house. Cindy refused to let him in and locked the windows and doors to prevent him from entering the house. Williams banged on the doors and windows, then climbed into the house through a window that had an air conditioner in it. Once inside the home, Williams “[got] right up in [Cindy's] and K.W.’s face” and was “screaming at [them].” Tr. Vol. 2 pp. 122, 207. Cindy and K.W. told Williams to leave the home or they would call the police. While Williams was yelling, K.W. told her parents to stop arguing and tried to call 911, but Williams pushed her into her bedroom and would not let her leave to call 911. State's Ex. 2.⁵ During this confrontation, Williams “shoved [K.W.] up against [her] closet.” State's Ex. 3; State's Ex. 7 at 0:16–0:18.  ⁶ Eventually, Williams and Cindy moved their argument to their bedroom. While Williams and Cindy were in their bedroom, K.W. retrieved her phone, snuck out of the house, and called 911.

[4] The police arrived at the residence, and in the meantime, Williams had left the house. Cindy and K.W. spoke to the police and were “definitely upset” and “worked up.” Tr. Vol. 2 pp. 117, 121. Cindy told the police that Williams's behavior had been “building up,” and that he had broken her phone the day before. Id. at 123–24. After speaking with Cindy and K.W., the police told them to call if Williams returned, then left the house but waited nearby.

[5] About an hour later, Cindy and K.W. contacted the police again to report that Williams had returned. When the police arrived back at the house, Cindy told them that Williams had just left in a white van, heading west. The police pursued the van, and approximately one mile from the house, the van turned at an intersection. At that time, Williams jumped out while the van was still moving and then ran into a cornfield to hide. The police commanded Williams multiple times to exit the cornfield and surrender, and he finally surrendered after one of the officers announced he would deploy his police dog.

[6] On August 20, 2021, the State charged Williams with Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, Class A misdemeanor interference with the reporting of a crime, and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. On November 4, 2021, the State added an additional count of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. On April 30, 2024, a bench trial was held.

[7] At the conclusion of the bench trial, the trial court took the decision under advisement, and on May 26, 2024, the trial court found Williams guilty on all counts. On June 18, 2024, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 365 days in the Pulaski County Jail with thirty days executed and 335 days suspended to probation. Williams now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Williams argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his convictions for Class A misdemeanor domestic battery and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. When there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “[w]e neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility.” Gibson v. State, 51 N.E.3d 204, 210 (Ind. 2016), cert. denied. Instead, we consider only that evidence most favorable to the judgment together with all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. “We will affirm the judgment if it is supported by substantial evidence of probative value even if there is some conflict in that evidence.” Id. Further, “[w]e will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 696 (Ind. 2017).

I. Domestic Battery

[9] Williams first contends that insufficient evidence was presented to support his conviction for domestic battery. In order to convict Williams of domestic battery as a Class A misdemeanor, the State was required to prove that he knowingly or intentionally touched a family or household member in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1). “Any touching, however slight, may constitute battery.” Mathis v. State, 859 N.E.2d 1275, 1281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

[10] The evidence most favorable to the judgment established that, after Williams entered the house through a window, he got into the faces of Cindy and K.W. and was screaming at them. They both told him that if he did not leave the house, they would call the police. As Williams was yelling, K.W. told her parents to stop arguing and tried to call 911, but Williams pushed her into her bedroom, shoving her “up against [her] closet” and would not let her leave to call 911. State's Ex. 3; State's Ex. 7 at 0:16–0:18. This was sufficient evidence to support Williams's conviction for domestic battery.

[11] Even though sufficient evidence was presented to prove the elements of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, Williams contends that he was justified in his actions under the defense of parental privilege. Williams does not contest the elements of the domestic battery and instead claims the defense of parental discipline pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-41-3-1, which provides: “A person is justified in engaging in conduct otherwise prohibited if he has legal authority to do so.” Williams asserts that he had a fundamental right to discipline his child using reasonable force in response to K.W's actions when she inserted herself into the argument between Williams and Cindy. Williams argues that his action of shoving K.W. was a reaction to her out of control behavior and that he was merely disciplining her, which was well within his rights as her father.

[12] “A parent is privileged to apply such reasonable force or to impose such reasonable confinement upon his or her child as he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for [the child's] proper control, training, or education.” Willis v. State, 888 N.E.2d 177, 182 (Ind. 2008) (brackets omitted) (quoting Restatement of the Law (Second) Torts, § 147(1) (1965)). “The defense of parental privilege, like self-defense, is a complete defense,” and therefore, “a valid claim of parental privilege is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act.” Id. (citing I.C. § 35-41-3-1). “[T]o sustain a conviction for battery where a claim of parental privilege has been asserted, the State must prove that either: (1) the force the parent used was unreasonable or (2) the parent's belief that such force was necessary to control [his or] her child and prevent misconduct was unreasonable.” Id. “The State may refute a claim of the defense of parental privilege by direct rebuttal or by relying upon the sufficiency of the evidence in its case-in-chief.” Id.

[13] Although Williams characterizes his actions as shoving or swiping K.W.’s hand away from his face, the evidence most favorable to the judgment established that, after K.W. inserted herself into the argument between Williams and Cindy and told her parents to stop arguing, Williams pushed her into her bedroom, shoving her “up against [her] closet” and would not let her leave to call 911. State's Ex. 3; State's Ex. 7 at 0:16–0:18. At trial, Williams testified that, when K.W. got involved in the argument between Williams and Cindy, he “swiped her hand away from her pushing me,” but when asked how he punished her for her actions, he stated that he “[g]round[ed] her from her phone [and [p]ut her to her bedroom.” Tr. Vol. 2 pp. 214, 216. Therefore, while Williams downplays his actions toward K.W., the evidence demonstrated that, instead of merely punishing her for getting involved in the parents’ argument, he shoved her up against her closet to prevent her from calling 911, and such force was disproportionate to K.W.’s actions of attempting to stop her father from yelling at her mother and was not reasonable conduct that the parental privilege shields.

[14] Williams's arguments to the contrary are requests to reweigh the evidence and for this court to judge the credibility of the witnesses, which we will not do. See Gibson, 51 N.E.3d at 210. The State presented sufficient evidence to refute Williams's claim of the defense of parental privilege, and we, therefore, conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to support his conviction for domestic battery.

II. Disorderly Conduct

[15] Williams also argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his conviction for disorderly conduct. He asserts that he did not engage in tumultuous behavior during his argument with Cindy as they were merely engaged in an intense dispute regarding rumors of Williams's infidelity. Williams contends that his actions did not create any danger to Cindy or K.W., which would likely result in serious bodily injury and, therefore, did not amount to engaging in tumultuous conduct as required by the statute.

[16] In order to convict Williams of disorderly conduct, the State was required to prove that he “recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally” engaged in “fighting or in tumultuous conduct.” I.C. § 35-45-1-3(a)(1). Tumultuous conduct means “conduct that results in, or is likely to result in, serious bodily injury to a person or substantial damage to property.” I.C. § 35-45-1-1. Disorderly conduct may occur “when the aggressor appears well on his way to inflicting serious bodily injury but relents in the face of superior force or creative resistance.” Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1007 (Ind. 2009).

[17] Looking to the evidence most favorable to the judgment, Williams arrived at the house when Cindy and K.W. were inside, and when they refused to let him inside, he climbed though one of the windows. Once inside, he “[got] in their faces and scream[ed] at them.” Tr. Vol. 2 p. 119. Cindy and K.W. told Williams to stop screaming and to leave or they would call the police. While Williams was yelling, K.W. told her parents to stop arguing and tried to call 911, but Williams pushed her into her bedroom, shoved her against her closet, and would not let her leave to call 911. Williams's conduct, which included screaming at his ex-wife and child, shoving his child, and preventing them from calling 911, was conduct that was likely to, and often does, lead to serious bodily injury in domestic violence situations. See Bailey, 907 N.E.2d at 1006–07 (observing that it was reasonable for the factfinder to conclude that Bailey's conduct of angrily approaching another man and shouting obscenities would have escalated to a serious bodily injury). Although Williams claims that he did not move toward Cindy or K.W. in an angry manner as the defendant in Bailey, the evidence established that he entered the house through a window after angrily banging on the windows and doors, and once inside, he angrily and aggressively got in the faces of Cindy and K.W., screamed at both and attempted to keep them from calling 911. During this altercation, Williams refused to leave the house and only left after K.W. called 911. We conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to support his conviction for disorderly conduct.

[18] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1).

2.   I.C. § 35-45-2-5(1).

3.   I.C. § 35-45-1-3(a)(1).

4.   I.C. § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(3).

5.   State's Exhibit 2 is body camera footage from the responding officer, which includes statements from Cindy that Williams pushed K.W. back into her bedroom and would not allow her to call 911.

6.   State's Exhibit 3 is body camera footage from the responding officer, which includes statements from K.W. that Williams would not allow her to call 911 and shoved her. State's Exhibit 7 is a recording of the 911 call in which K.W. states that Williams shoved her against her closet.

Foley, Judge.

Judges Mathias and Felix concur. Mathias, J. and Felix, J., concur.