WILLIAMS v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Steven Williams appeals his conviction for domestic battery, a Level 5 felony, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Williams argues that his conviction must be reversed because the “undisputed evidence” established that the alleged victim stole his phone and that he was only acting “to retrieve his [own property].” Appellant's Brief at 4.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Williams and K.J. were in a romantic relationship for five years and had three children together. Although the couple separated in March 2024, they continued to co-parent. On several occasions, Williams and K.J. spoke about “getting back together” but they never did. Transcript Vol. II at 107. Following the separation, K.J. stayed with various friends. On December 21, 2024, K.J. spent the night with Jeromy Hammond at his residence.

[4] The next morning, a friend of K.J.’s—Jesse Maiden—drove to Hammond's residence to drop off some clothes that K.J. had left at his house. Williams rode along and hid in the back of the van. When they arrived, K.J. got into the front seat to talk with Maiden. Williams approached K.J. from the rear of the van and started choking her. K.J. was able to exit the vehicle and Williams followed her. He then hit K.J. and threw her to the ground.

[5] K.J. was able to call 911 and the dispatcher heard her scream at Williams to stop and get away from her. K.J. told the dispatcher that Williams had hit her. Hammond eventually walked out of his house and noticed that Williams was standing over K.J. At that point, Williams and Maiden drove away in the van.

[6] Officer Brandlee Miller of the Centerville Police Department arrived at the scene in response to K.J.’s 911 call. Officer Miller observed defensive wounds on K.J.’s hands, including scratches and cuts, while the paramedics were treating her. Officer Miller also observed bruising on K.J.’s chest when she complained of pain in that area.

[7] K.J. told Officer Miller that Williams had attacked her and shoved her to the ground. Shortly thereafter, Wayne County Sheriff's Deputy Brandon Creech arrived at the scene and photographed K.J.’s injuries. Later that day, K.J. telephoned Officer Creech and told him that she did not want to pursue charges against Williams.

[8] On December 23, K.J. met with Detective Tim Gard and claimed that she and Williams were merely “wrestling” when the incident occurred. Transcript Vol. II at 121, 155, 158. Detective Gard reviewed the statements and the evidence that had been collected regarding the episode, and on January 3, 2025, the State charged Williams with Class A misdemeanor domestic battery and Level 5 felony criminal confinement. The State further alleged that Williams had a prior conviction for domestic battery and that he was a habitual offender.

[9] At Williams's jury trial on May 13, 2025, K.J. testified that Williams had not battered or confined her. Rather, she testified that she asked Williams about other women he was seeing. K.J. explained that she then grabbed Williams's phone, tucked it into her chest, and that Williams was wrestling with her while he was trying to retrieve his phone.

[10] The State presented video footage of the incident that was taken from a neighbor's camera, audio from the 911 call, and Hammond's testimony that he heard K.J. screaming before walking outside his residence. That evidence contradicted K.J.’s trial testimony.

[11] The jury also observed Officer Miller's bodycam footage that included his interview with K.J. immediately after the incident. That recording included K.J.’s statement that Williams was hiding in the van and that he attacked her from behind. K.J. admitted at trial that “things other than” what she testified to could be heard on the 911 call. Id. at 121.

[12] Following the presentation of evidence, the jury found Williams guilty of domestic battery, and not guilty of criminal confinement. The trial court entered the judgment of conviction as a Level 5 felony, following Williams's admission to having a prior domestic battery conviction. The State agreed not to proceed on the habitual offender count, and Williams was subsequently sentenced.

[13] Williams now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[14] In addressing Williams's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our Supreme Court recently reiterated the 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).

[15] To convict Williams of domestic battery, the State was required to show that Williams knowingly or intentionally touched K.J., who was a family or household member, in a rude, insolent, or angry manner.¹ See Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1). A person acts knowingly if “he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so.” I.C. § 35-41-2-2(b). A person acts intentionally if “it is his conscious objective to do so.” I.C. § 35-41-2-2(a). A touching that is rude, insolent, or angry includes a touching that is discourteous or offensive in manner or action and exhibits boldness or effrontery: impudent. In re Hill, 144 N.E.3d 184, 188 (Ind. 2020). In other words, any touching, however slight, may constitute battery. Impson v. State, 721 N.E.2d 1275, 1285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).

[16] In this case, the evidence established that Williams hid in the back of Maiden's van while they traveled to Hammond's house where K.J. had been staying. When they arrived, K.J. got into the van to talk with Maiden. At that point, Williams approached K.J. from behind and choked her. K.J. ran out of the van and Williams followed. Williams then hit K.J. and threw her to the ground. The 911 call recorded K.J. screaming for help while Williams was yelling and hitting her. The video footage from a neighbor's camera showed Williams shoving K.J. to the ground as she screamed for help.

[17] Williams points to K.J.’s trial testimony where she admitted taking his phone and that they were wrestling because he was attempting to retrieve his property. It was within the province of the jury, however, to weigh K.J.’s trial testimony against her original description of the attack and the other evidence that was admitted at trial and determine which to credit. See, e.g., Chambless v. State, 119 N.E.3d 182, 193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (holding that when a witness's trial testimony contradicts a statement she made before trial, it is the jury's province to decide which statement to believe), trans. denied.

[18] Here, the jury chose to credit K.J.’s original version of the incident, and we will not substitute our judgment of witness credibility for that of the jury. Bell v. State, 31 N.E.3d 495, 500 (Ind. 2015). In short, K.J.’s injuries, the statements she made to Officer Miller at the time of the incident, the video and audio footage, Hammond's testimony, and the 911 call, all support Williams's conviction for domestic battery.

[19] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Williams did not dispute that K.J. was a family or household member for the purposes of the domestic battery charge.

Altice, Chief Judge

May, J. and Foley, J., concur.