BREWER v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Aaron James Brewer appeals his conviction of Level 4 felony child molesting.¹ Brewer argues the State failed to prove he touched L.B with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of himself or L.B. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Brewer was married to L.B.’s mother, and at the pertinent time, the three of them lived together in a trailer in Knox, Indiana. When L.B. was in second grade, she told her mother and Brewer that she wanted to learn how to drive. Brewer agreed to teach her, and he took her to his truck. L.B. sat behind the steering wheel on Brewer's lap, so that she could control the wheel while Brewer controlled the pedals. They drove the truck away from the trailer, down the hill to the end of the driveway, and behind an abandoned house. When the truck stopped behind the abandoned house, out of sight of the trailer, Brewer put his hands inside the black leggings that L.B. was wearing. He moved his hand around and touched L.B.’s vagina with his hand. L.B. told him to stop, but he continued a little longer. Brewer then drove the truck back to the trailer and instructed L.B. not to tell anyone that he had touched her. L.B. did not tell anyone until two years later, when she and Brewer no longer lived in the same house.

[3] The State charged Brewer with Level 1 felony child molesting,² Level 2 felony child seduction,³ and Level 4 felony child molesting. After the State's presentation of evidence at Brewer's jury trial, Brewer moved for directed verdicts on all counts. The trial court granted directed verdict for Brewer on Level 1 felony child molesting and Level 2 felony child seduction. The jury thereafter found Brewer guilty of Level 4 felony child molesting. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a ten-year sentence.

Discussion and Decision

[4] Brewer challenges the sufficiency of the State's evidence to prove he committed Level 4 felony child molesting. Our Indiana Supreme Court recently reiterated our standard of review for such questions:

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).

[5] Our legislature defined the Level 4 felony child molesting of which Brewer was convicted as follows:

A person who, with a child under fourteen (14) years of age, performs or submits to any fondling or touching, of either the child or the older person, with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the older person, commits child molesting, a Level 4 felony.

Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(b). To be convicted under this definition, it is not enough that touching occurred. Carter v. State, 31 N.E.3d 17, 30 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. “The State must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the act of touching was accompanied by the specific intent to arouse or satisfy sexual desires.” Id. Intent is a mental function that cannot be supported with direct evidence unless a defendant confesses. Brown v. State, 222 N.E.3d 362, 372 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), reh'g denied, trans. denied. Without such evidence, we must rely on circumstantial evidence and infer intent from “the actor's conduct and the natural and usual consequence to which such conduct usually points.” Carter, 31 N.E.3d at 30. Brewer claims the State failed to prove he acted with the requisite intent. We cannot agree.

[6] Brewer stopped the truck at a location where he and L.B. would not be visible to anyone else, he put his hands inside her leggings and touched her bare vagina with his bare hand, he continued moving his hand around after she told him to stop, and he told L.B. not to tell anyone what he had done. Brewer attempts to distinguish these facts from other cases in which convictions have been upheld based on the facts that he and L.B. remained dressed, that he did not say anything sexually explicit, and that he did not touch her on more than one occasion. However, the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from Brewer's behavior, given the circumstances in which it occurred, is that Brewer was trying to arouse himself or L.B. See, e.g., Lockhart v. State, 671 N.E.2d 893, 903 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (“Contrary to [defendant's] contentions, the intent to arouse or satisfy sexual desires may be inferred from evidence that the accused intentionally touched a child's genitals.”). The evidence therefore supports his conviction.

Conclusion

[7] The evidence was sufficient to support Brewer's conviction of Level 4 felony child molesting, and we accordingly affirm.

[8] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(b).

2.   Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a).

3.   Ind. Code § 35-42-4-7(m).

May, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and Foley, J., concur.