Darryl L. Hendrickson, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] A jury determined that Darryl L. Hendrickson was guilty of multiple counts of child molesting and criminal confinement in connection with abusing his romantic partner's daughter. Hendrickson appeals his convictions, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Concluding that the State presented sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Danielle Payne (“Danielle”) began dating Hendrickson. She had two children from a prior relationship, including L.P., who was born in 2010. Hendrickson also had two children from a prior relationship. Danielle and Hendrickson moved into a house together with their respective children when L.P. was around two and a half years old. L.P. called Hendrickson “Daddy Darryl.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 167.

[3] L.P. also visited her maternal grandfather, Steve Payne (“Steve”), and his then-wife, Carla Payne (“Carla”), at their house. Carla initially observed that L.P. and Hendrickson had a good relationship, with lots of laughing and joking.

[4] When L.P. was four or five, Hendrickson took her out of her bed and carried her to his bedroom. Danielle was not present. Hendrickson put L.P. on the bed and took his pants off. Next, he took her pants off and rubbed his penis on her vagina. Hendrickson's penis went inside L.P.’s vagina “[a] little bit.” Tr. Vol. 3, p. 29. After Hendrickson stopped rubbing his penis on L.P., she saw “white stuff.” Id. Her vagina stung. He carried her back to her bedroom.

[5] Several weeks later, Hendrickson took L.P. out of her bedroom and went to his bedroom again. Danielle was not in the room. Hendrickson took off his clothes and her clothes. He rubbed his penis on L.P.’s vagina again, and his penis “sort of went in” again. Id. at 32. When Hendrickson was done, L.P. saw white stuff on his penis. Next, he took her back to her bedroom.

[6] When L.P. was four, Carla noticed that she did not want to leave Steve and Carla's house to return home. She cried and resisted getting in the car. L.P. also began to regress, sucking on her fingers and carrying a blanket. During this period, L.P.’s cousin, Saysha Payne, also noticed that L.P. did not want to be around Hendrickson and “cowered away from him.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 203. L.P. eventually told her mother that Hendrickson had molested her, but her mother did not believe her.

[7] Several years later, L.P. and her sibling were removed from Danielle's custody and placed in foster care due to Danielle's drug addiction issues. The children continued to visit Steve and Carla, who sought third party guardianship for them. The children also spent weekends with their mother, who continued to live with Hendrickson.

[8] During one weekend visit, L.P. fell asleep in her own bed but woke up in Hendrickson's bed. He was standing over her, taking off his pants. Hendrickson climbed on top of L.P., held her down, and put his penis in her vagina. She felt pain in her vaginal area, and when Hendrickson moved, she saw “white stuff” on the bed. Tr. Vol. 3, p. 38. He told L.P. that if she talked with anyone about what he did, he would kill her. She was scared and ran back to her room. L.P. later said that every act of molestation occurred at Hendrickson's house, in his room, and no other men were present.

[9] In May 2017, Steve and Carla received full custody of L.P. and her sibling. L.P. told Carla that she had been sexually abused. Carla called the Indiana Department of Child Services, who contacted law enforcement.

[10] L.P. was taken to a child advocacy center, where she spoke with a trained forensic child interviewer. L.P. told the interviewer that Hendrickson had sexually abused her several times. The interviewer asked L.P. to describe Hendrickson, asking whether he had any tattoos. L.P. was unsure but responded that he did.

[11] In September 2021, the State charged Hendrickson with Class A felony child molesting; Level 1 felony child molesting; Class C felony child molesting; Level 4 felony child molesting; Class C felony criminal confinement; and Level 5 felony criminal confinement. During a pre-trial deposition, L.P. said that Hendrickson had several tattoos on his arms.

[12] Trial by jury was held in February 2025. During Hendrickson's testimony, he took off his shirt to demonstrate that he did not have any tattoos. The jury determined Hendrickson was guilty as charged. The court sentenced him to thirty-one years. This appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision

[13] Hendrickson argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to show that he committed the offenses, claiming that L.P. misidentified him. He does not challenge the evidence supporting the elements of the individual offenses.

[14] “When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility.” Sorenson v. State, 133 N.E.3d 717, 725 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. We instead consider only the evidence favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences supporting it. Id. “We will affirm if a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.

[15] Hendrickson points to L.P.’s erroneous statements that he had tattoos. He also notes that L.P.’s grandfather, Steve, had several tattoos. And Hendrickson directs us to testimony by one of his daughters that L.P. once said that she did not want to go back to Steve and Carla's house. Finally, he notes that L.P. may have misidentified the color of the hair on his torso. Hendrickson concludes L.P.’s testimony is insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict. We disagree.

[16] At trial, L.P. never wavered in identifying Hendrickson as the man who confined and molested her. She also stated the assaults always occurred in Hendrickson's bedroom and that no other men were present. The errors and inconsistencies in L.P.’s testimony were a matter for the jury to weigh. See Holmes v. State, 545 N.E.2d 569, 570 (Ind. 1989) (State presented sufficient evidence to sustain robbery conviction; victim wrongly described defendant's height, but weight of error was for jury to assess).

[17] Hendrickson relies heavily on Adcock v. State, 22 N.E.3d 720 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), but that case is distinguishable. In Adcock, the Court reversed a denial of Adcock's petition for post-conviction relief. The Court determined Adcock's direct appeal counsel should have challenged the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining his convictions for child molesting. Hendrickson directs our attention to Adcock's conviction for Class A felony child molesting. The Court determined that the conviction lacked sufficient evidentiary support because the victim provided a range of dates when the molestation occurred, but depending on her age within that range of dates, the offense would have qualified as either a Class A or Class B felony. Id. at 726. And the statute of limitations for the Class B felony offense had expired by the time the State filed charges.

[18] By contrast, in the current case the dates of the offenses do not give rise to concerns about the appropriate level of the offenses in connection with L.P.’s age. Hendrickson does not dispute that she was under the relevant age limit when the offenses occurred. Also, Hendrickson does not raise any statute of limitations issues. We cannot conclude that the holding in Adcock requires reversal here. Hendrickson has failed to demonstrate that there is insufficient evidence to establish his identity.

Conclusion

[19] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[20] Affirmed.

Baker, Senior Judge.

Pyle, J., and Foley, J., concur.