Anthony Herron, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Anthony Herron struck, kicked, and pulled the hair of his girlfriend directly in front of a neighbor's security doorbell camera. The attack, which occurred in the common area of a multi-unit complex, attracted the attention of a neighbor who listened to and watched the incident for nearly five minutes before calling the police. At trial Herron and his girlfriend claimed the entire situation was a set-up to become TikTok-famous. The trial court found Herron guilty of domestic battery. Herron now appeals, raising one issue for our review: Whether the State presented sufficient evidence at trial to support Herron's conviction.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On September 8, 2024, Herron and D.M., Herron's girlfriend and mother of his three children, argued in the hallway outside their apartment. As the two argued about D.M. having Herron's phone, Herron forcefully grabbed the phone from D.M.’s hand and hit D.M. on the left side of her face, knocking her to the ground. As D.M. lay on the ground, Herron pulled D.M.’s hair and kicked her. During the altercation, Herron shouted at D.M., telling her, among other things, to “give [him his] sh[*]t” and to “leave [him] the f[*]ck alone.” State Ex. 2 at 0:04–0:24. Herron's neighbor, who observed and recorded the incident through her security doorbell camera (the “Doorbell Footage”), called 911 and shared the Doorbell Footage with Officer Joshua Smith of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department when he arrived at the scene.

[4] While speaking with the neighbor, Officer Smith saw Herron and D.M. walk by the apartment building, still arguing and shouting at each other. Officer Smith detained and interviewed Herron, who told the officer that the fight was about “getting his cell phone.” Tr. Vol. II at 40. Officer Smith then interviewed D.M. and noticed a “fresh, like bleeding scrape on the left side of her face.” Id. at 41. D.M. told the officer that the cut was unrelated to her fight with Herron and that she got the scrape earlier that day when she “tripped over a stick” while opening the gate of her storage unit. Id. at 50.

[5] The State charged Herron with one count each of domestic battery as a Class A misdemeanor ¹ (the “Domestic Battery Count”) and battery resulting in bodily injury as a Class A misdemeanor ² (the “Bodily Injury Count”). At Herron's bench trial, the neighbor who overheard the argument between Herron and D.M. testified about observing “a lot of arguing and just kind of pushing each other around.” Id. at 34. The neighbor watched Herron argue with D.M. for approximately five minutes. Herron and D.M. testified that the two were not actually fighting in the admitted Doorbell Footage and that they were instead “play fighting” with the goal of “becom[ing] viral” on TikTok. Tr. Vol. II at 31. D.M. also testified that the audio heard on the Doorbell Footage was not actually the sounds of Herron and D.M fighting; rather, D.M. was playing fighting sounds that she “pick[ed] ․ off other people's TikToks” from her phone speaker. Id. at 32. Herron stated that D.M. “was trying to go viral, and [he] was just being a boyfriend. [He] just wanted to make [D.M.] happy.” Id. at 51. In an effort to convince the court of his veracity, Herron also testified that, “I've been in church since I was 12 years-old. I've been in drama classes. I've been in everything. I'm a musician. I'm a nerd at that. So I know media. I know stuff like that. So like trust me, it wasn't real.” Id. at 52. However, Officer Smith testified that neither Herron nor D.M. mentioned at the scene that they were filming a TikTok.

[6] The trial court found Herron guilty as charged but vacated his conviction on the Bodily Injury Count due to double jeopardy concerns. Regarding Herron and D.M.’s testimony, the trial court determined they were not credible, stating in relevant part as follows:

So, reviewing everything here, in 15 years on the bench, Mr. Herron and [D.M.] are two of the worst liars I have ever had come into a courtroom. My intelligence is insulted that I am to believe that they are making a TikTok and that this is not domestic battery. I'm insulted. I am personally insulted that you would come into court and expect me to believe that. That is absolutely, positively ridiculous. Now, I disregard [D.M.’s] testimony in the sense that it makes absolutely no sense that that's supposed to be some sort of fun TikTok.

Tr. Vol. II at 62. The trial court sentenced Herron to 343 days of probation. Herron now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

The State Presented Sufficient Evidence to Support Herron's Conviction

[7] Herron argues that the State presented insufficient evidence at trial to support his conviction on the Domestic Battery Count. Our standard of review for such a claim is as follows:

“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.’ ” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015)). This Court reviews only the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences therefrom, and will reverse only where it is shown that “no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Teising [v. State], 226 N.E.3d [780,] 783 [(Ind. 2024)].

Konkle v. State, 253 N.E.3d 1068, 1090–91 (Ind. 2025). We do not reweigh the evidence or reassess witness credibility. Id. at 1090 (quoting Teising, 226 N.E.3d at 783).

[8] In order to convict Herron on the Domestic Battery Count, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Herron knowingly “touche[d] a family or household member in a rude, insolent, or angry manner.” Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1); see Appellant's App. Vol. II at 19. “A person engages in conduct ‘knowingly’ if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so.” I.C. § 35-31-2-2(b). Knowledge is a mental state, and “absent an admission by the defendant, the [factfinder] must resort to the reasonable inferences from both the direct and circumstantial evidence to determine whether the defendant has the requisite knowledge or intent to commit the offense in question.” Konkle, 253 N.E.3d at 1091 (quoting Stubbers v. State, 190 N.E.3d 424, 432 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied).

[9] Herron argues that the State provided insufficient evidence to prove that Herron's contact with D.M. was nonconsensual, pointing out that both Herron and D.M. “testified under oath that no non-consensual contact occurred.” Appellant's Br. at 7. Herron's argument amounts to a request for us to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility, which we cannot do. See Konkle, 253 N.E.3d at 1090 (quoting Teising, 226 N.E.3d at 783). The trial court expressly disregarded Herron and D.M.’s testimony, stating that they were “two of the worst liars [he] had ever had come into a courtroom”; their explanation of events was “absolutely, positively ridiculous”; and D.M's testimony made “absolutely no sense[.]” Tr. Vol. II at 62.

[10] Here, the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict show that Herron struck D.M. in the face, pulled D.M.’s hair, and kicked D.M while the two were arguing outside their apartment building. An eyewitness testified to observing the argument and witnessing Herron pushing D.M. A security doorbell camera recorded the whole event, which included audio and video of Herron striking and kicking D.M. While interviewing D.M., Officer Smith noticed a fresh scrape on D.M.’s face, which the trial court could reasonably infer was caused by Herron striking her. The trial court was free to and did, in fact, disbelieve Herron and D.M.’s claims that the fighting was fake. It was not unreasonable to conclude Herron knowingly touched D.M., a member of his household, in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. Thus, we cannot say the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support Herron's conviction for domestic battery. We therefore affirm Herron's conviction.³

[11] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1).

2.   I.C. § 35-42-2-1(c)(1), (d)(1).

3.   Herron also contends that the State had the burden to directly rebut D.M.’s testimony by “introducing expert testimony into the Record which can support a conclusion that the alleged victim suffers from Battered Woman Syndrome[.]” Appellant's Br. at 8. Herron cites Carnahan v. State, 681 N.E.2d 1164 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), to support this assertion. First, Herron's interpretation of Carnahan is incorrect. Secondly, since this issue wasn't raised at trial, it is waived for appeal.

Felix, Judge.

Judges Brown and Scheele concur. Brown, J., and Scheele, J., concur.