Deonta Jermaine Johnson, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] In this case, five-year-old D.W. (“D.W.”) shot one-year-old I.J. (“I.J.”) in the head and killed him. I.J.’s father, Deonta Johnson (“Johnson”) appeals his convictions, following a jury trial, for Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in death,¹ Level 5 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in bodily injury,² and Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug.³ He argues that the evidence is insufficient to support these convictions. Concluding that there is sufficient evidence to support Johnson's convictions, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issues

1. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support Johnson's conviction for Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in death.

2. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support Johnson's conviction for Level 5 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in bodily injury.

3. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support Johnson's conviction for Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug.

Facts

[3] The facts most favorable to the judgment reveal that in March 2023, Johnson and Shatia Welch (“Welch”) lived in an apartment (“the apartment”) in Lafayette with their son, I.J., and Welch's son, D.W. At approximately 3:00 p.m. on March 28, 2023, Johnson attempted to telephone Welch. When he was unable to reach her, he texted her that I.J. was dead. A few minutes later, someone other than Johnson called 911 to report an unresponsive child. Before law enforcement officers arrived at the scene, a video camera in the parking lot recorded Johnson placing an item in a black Nissan (“the Nissan”) that was parked in front of the apartment (“the Nissan video”).

[4] A Lafayette Police Department officer (“the officer”) arrived at the scene just minutes later. As the officer, who was wearing a body camera, was exiting his vehicle, Johnson walked out of the apartment carrying a deceased I.J. in his arms. The officer, who noticed a gunshot wound on I.J.’s head, followed Johnson back into the apartment and asked him where the gun was located. Johnson told the officer that there was no gun and that I.J. had fallen. In addition, Johnson further explained that he had been sleeping downstairs when he had been awakened by “a loud boom from upstairs.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 84). According to Johnson, he had rushed upstairs and had discovered a deceased I.J., who appeared to have “sustained some kind of blunt force trauma” to his head. (Tr. Vol. 3 at 84). Johnson further told the officer that D.W., who had been upstairs with I.J., had caused the trauma that had killed I.J. While the officer and Johnson were talking, D.W., who was sitting on the couch in the living room, referred to Johnson as daddy. The officer's body camera recorded the interaction between the officer and Johnson (“the officer's body camera video”) and revealed that Johnson is a fully-developed man with a large stomach. In addition, he has a mustache, a goatee, and tattoos.

[5] Later that evening, a Lafayette Police Department detective crime scene investigator (“the detective”) searched the apartment and took photographs (“the detective's photographs”). In the children's bedroom, the detective found blood and brain matter on the floor. In addition, the detective found a bullet hole in a canvas cube that was located in a dresser. When the detective looked through the clothing in the cube, he found a bullet. In the adults’ bedroom, the detective noticed what appeared to be blood at the end of the bed and on the floor. In addition, the detective found a Taurus handgun box, a black holster, and an empty gun safe under the bed. Further, the detective found a black Taurus 9mm handgun (“the handgun”) and a Nissan key fob in a dresser drawer.

[6] On a bookshelf in the living room, the detective found a large plastic bag with ninety-three and one-half blue circular tablets, which each had an “M and 30” imprint code. (Tr. Vol. 3 at 109). The detective suspected that the tablets were fentanyl. In addition, the detective found, on a desk, a metal grinder containing a green, plant-like substance that smelled like marijuana. The detective also searched the Nissan and found a large plastic bag containing 383.7 grams of marijuana. Further, the Lafayette Police Department forensic unit supervisor (“the supervisor”) arrived at the scene and collected Johnson's cell phone (“the cell phone”).

[7] While law enforcement officers were searching the apartment, D.W. was taken to Heartford House (“Heartford House”), a child advocacy center, for a forensic interview. The purpose of the interview was to gather information from him about what had occurred at the apartment. While D.W. was waiting for his interview, he played with Legos. When a victim advocate asked him what he was building, he responded, “this is a GLOCK and then pointed it at [her] face and started doing, like, pew-pew [sounds].” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 186). During the interview, D.W. appeared to be “delayed developmentally and didn't have the capacity to talk in detail about what [had] occurred.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 175).

[8] Following D.W.’s interview, the supervisor arrived at Heartford House to search D.W. and obtain his DNA. The supervisor noticed that D.W. had “[s]ome type of abrasion, scuff mark, on his nose.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 235). The abrasion looked “fresh” but was not actively bleeding. (Tr. Vol. 3 at 235). The supervisor took photographs of D.W. (“the supervisor's photographs”), including close-up photographs of his face and nose.

[9] In addition, hair follicles that were subsequently collected from five-year-old D.W. tested positive for cocaine and cocaine metabolites. Further, one of the cocaine metabolites was “consistent with [D.W.] having consumed both cocaine and ․ alcohol.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 151).

[10] The forensic pathologist (“the forensic pathologist”) who performed I.J.’s autopsy determined that I.J., an otherwise healthy one-year-old child, had been shot in the head. Specifically, the forensic pathologist determined that I.J. had a gunshot entrance wound on the left side of his head near the temple and a gunshot exit wound on the right side of his head. According to the forensic pathologist, the bullet had fractured I.J.’s skull and passed through his brain. In addition, the forensic pathologist determined that I.J.’s cause of death was a gunshot wound to his head and the manner of his death was an accident. Further, I.J.’s toxicology report revealed that his blood tested positive for THC.

[11] In July 2023, the State charged Johnson with: (1) Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in death where the victim was I.J.; (2) Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent where the victim was I.J.; (3) Level 5 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in bodily injury where the victim was D.W.; (4) Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent where the victim was D.W.; (5) Level 2 felony conspiracy to commit dealing in a narcotic drug (fentanyl); (6) Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug (fentanyl); (7) Level 3 felony possession of a narcotic drug (fentanyl); (8) Level 6 felony conspiracy to commit dealing in marijuana; (9) Level 6 felony dealing in marijuana; (10) Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana; (11) Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia; and (12) Level 6 felony obstruction of justice.

[12] At Johnson's three-day trial in May 2025, the jury heard the facts as set forth above. In addition, a forensic scientist (“the forensic scientist”) at the Indiana State Police lab (“the lab”) testified that she had tested one blue tablet from the plastic bag that had contained ninety-three and one-half tablets. According to the forensic scientist, the tablet, which had weighed 0.16 gram, “was found to contain fentanyl[.]” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 217). The forensic scientist further testified that she did not test the additional tablets in the bag because as long as the tablets that she is testing “all are the same size, shape, and look similar[,]” it is the lab's policy to test only one tablet. (Tr. Vol. 3 at 218). In addition, the forensic scientist testified that the remaining blue tablets in the plastic bag weighed 12.74 grams.

[13] A lab firearm examiner (“the firearm examiner”) testified that he had examined the handgun and had discovered that it contained an unejected shell casing. Further, the firearm examiner explained that one reason that a shell casing might not be ejected from a firearm was “something called limp-wristing[.]” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 224). According to the firearm examiner, “if the firearm is not held securely, part of the recoil necessary to function the firearm, is absorbed by the shooter.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 225). The firearm examiner further testified that when he had test-fired the handgun, he had found it to be in working order and the shell casing had successfully ejected.

[14] Also, during the trial, the supervisor testified that he had examined Johnson's cell phone, which included TextNow and Facebook Messenger messages. A Tippecanoe County Drug Task Force detective (“the detective”) reviewed several of the messages, which the trial court admitted into evidence. These messages included conversations between Johnson and others who wanted to buy both marijuana and pills from Johnson. In addition, the detective testified that there are twenty-eight grams in an ounce, the price for marijuana ranges from $100 to $250 an ounce, and he would identify an individual who possessed nearly a pound of marijuana as a marijuana dealer. Further, according to the detective, the price of fentanyl tablets ranges from $4 to $30 per tablet and he would identify an individual who possessed more than six fentanyl tablets as a potential fentanyl dealer.

[15] The State's last witness was an investigator (“the investigator”) from the prosecutor's office who listened to recorded jail telephone calls. According to the investigator, he had listened to a recorded jail telephone call between Johnson and his father. The call had taken place after the jury selection in this case. The investigator was certain that it was Johnson on the telephone call because the investigator had “listened to hundreds of [Johnson's] jail calls” and had “watched video visits from the jail with him[.]” (Tr. Vol. 4 at 49). In addition, according to the investigator, Johnson, as an inmate at the jail, had a unique PIN number that he used to make telephone calls from the jail. The trial court admitted the telephone call into evidence and the jury listened to it. During the telephone call, Johnson told his father that he had gotten high before falling asleep the afternoon that D.W. had shot and killed I.J.

[16] In addition to listening to this telephone call, the jury watched the officer's body camera video and the Nissan video. Further, the trial court admitted into evidence both the detective's photographs and the supervisor's photographs.

[17] During closing argument, the State pointed out that the handgun's spent shell casing had not properly ejected. The State further explained that the jury had heard testimony that one reason that a shell casing might not be ejected was something called limp-wristing. In other words, if a shooter did not securely hold the handgun when he fired it, he absorbed part of the recoil. In addition, the State pointed out that D.W. had a fresh injury to his nose following the shooting. According to the State, the five-year-old child did not have the strength to fire a handgun properly and that it was “likely this injury occurred from getting smacked in the ․ face from the force of the gun after the weapon [had] discharged.” (Tr. Vol. 4 at 68).

[18] During Johnson's closing argument, he argued that the handgun belonged to Welch and should have been in the gun safe. According to Johnson, he had had no idea that the gun had been accessible to D.W.

[19] The jury acquitted Johnson of the Level 2 conspiracy to commit dealing in a narcotic drug and convicted him of the remaining eleven counts. The trial court merged several of the counts and entered judgments of conviction on the following counts: (1) Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in death; (2) Level 5 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in bodily injury; (3) Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug; (4) Level 6 felony dealing in marijuana; (5) Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia; and (6) Level 6 felony obstruction of justice. In addition, the trial court sentenced Johnson to an aggregate sentence of forty (40) years, with thirty-two (32) years executed in the Department of Correction and eight (8) years suspended to probation.

[20] Johnson now appeals.

Decision

[21] Johnson argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions for: (1) Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in death; (2) Level 5 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in bodily injury; and (3) Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug. We address each of his contentions in turn.

[22] “Our standard for reviewing evidentiary sufficiency challenges is well established, as we have made clear that it is the factfinder's role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction.” Konkle v. State, 253 N.E.3d 1068, 1090 (Ind. 2025) (cleaned up). “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.” Id. (cleaned up). We review 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.” Id. at 1090-91 (cleaned up).

1. Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in death

[23] Johnson first contends that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in death. Indiana Code § 35-46-1-4(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that “[a] person having the care of a dependent ․ who knowingly or intentionally ․ places the dependent in a situation that endangers the dependent's life or health ․ commits neglect of a dependent, a Level 6 felony.” “However, the offense is ․ a Level 1 felony if it is committed ․ by a person at least eighteen (18) years of age and results in the death ․ of a dependent who is less than fourteen (14) years of age[.]” I.C. § 35-46-1-4(b)(3).

[24] Johnson contends that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent because “[t]he State failed to prove that [he] was at least 18 years old at the time of the offense.” (Johnson's Br. 15). We disagree.

[25] Although the State did not present direct evidence of Johnson's age, “circumstantial testimonial evidence can be sufficient to prove age.” Brown v. State, 149 N.E.3d 322, 323 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (cleaned up), trans. denied. In addition, a jury may use its common sense when determining a defendant's age. Id.

[26] Here, the evidence reveals that Johnson is a fully-developed man with a large stomach. He also has a mustache, a goatee, and tattoos. Johnson lived with Welch, who had a five-year-old son, D.W. In addition, D.W. called Johnson daddy. Johnson was also the parent of one-year-old I.J. Further, the jury heard testimony that Johnson possessed a large quantity of drugs, including, ninety-three and one-half fentanyl tablets and nearly a pound of marijuana. The jury also heard testimony regarding Johnson's messages with those who wanted to purchase drugs from him. In addition, the jury heard testimony that Johnson was an inmate at the county jail both before and during the trial. Based on this evidence, the jury could use its common sense to determine that Johnson was at least eighteen years old when committed the offense. There is sufficient evidence to support Johnson's conviction of Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in death. See id. (finding sufficient circumstantial testimonial evidence that the defendant was at least twenty-one years old at the time of the offense).

2. Level 5 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in bodily injury

[27] Johnson next argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for Level 5 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in bodily injury. As previously stated, Indiana Code § 35-46-1-4(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that “[a] person having the care of a dependent ․ who knowingly or intentionally ․ places the dependent in a situation that endangers the dependent's life or health ․ commits neglect of a dependent, a Level 6 felony.” “However, the offense is ․ a Level 5 felony if it ․ results in bodily injury[.]” I.C. § 35-46-1-4(b)(1)(A).

[28] Johnson argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for Level 5 felony neglect of a dependent because “[t]he State failed to prove that D.W. was injured as a result of firing the gun at I.J.” (Johnson's Br. 16). We disagree.

[29] Neglect of a dependent is elevated from a Level 6 felony to a Level 5 felony if it results in bodily injury to the victim. I.C. § 35-46-1-4(b)(1)(A). Bodily injury means “any impairment of physical condition, including physical pain.” I.C. § 35-31.5-2-29. Red marks and minor scratches may constitute bodily injury. Tucker v. State, 725 N.E.2d 894, 898 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied.

[30] Here, our review of the evidence reveals that when the supervisor arrived at the Heartford House to search D.W. and obtain his DNA, the supervisor noticed a fresh abrasion on D.W.’s nose. The supervisor took photographs of D.W., including close-up photographs of his face and nose, and those photographs were admitted into evidence at trial. In addition, the firearm examiner testified that the handgun contained an unejected shell casing. The firearm examiner explained that one reason that a shell casing might not be ejected from a firearm was limp-wristing. According to the firearm examiner, limp-wristing occurs when the shooter does not securely hold the firearm and part of the recoil necessary to function the firearm is absorbed by the shooter. During closing argument, the State tied this evidence together and argued that five-year-old D.W. did not have the strength to fire the handgun properly. According to the State, his injury occurred when he was hit in the face from the force of the gun after he had fired it. This evidence is sufficient to support Johnson's conviction of Level 5 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in bodily injury. Johnson's argument is a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Konkle, 253 N.E.3d at 1090.

3. Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug

[31] Lastly, Johnson argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for Level 1 felony dealing in a narcotic drug. Indiana Code § 35-48-4-1(a)(2)(C) provides, in relevant part, that “[a] person who ․ possesses, with intent to ․ deliver ․ a narcotic drug, pure or adulterated ․ commits dealing in ․ a narcotic drug, a Level 5 felony[.]” However, “[t]he offense is a Level 2 felony if ․ the amount of the drug involved is at least ten (10) grams[.]” I.C. § 35-48-4-1(e)(1).

[32] Johnson argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug because “[t]he State failed to prove that [he] possessed at least 10 grams of fentanyl.” (Johnson's Br. 17). He specifically contends that because the forensic scientist tested only one pill that weighed 0.16 gram, “[t]he State only presented evidence that [he] possessed 0.16 gram of fentanyl.” (Johnson's Br. 18). We disagree.

[33] The gravamen of Johnson's argument appears to be that the forensic scientist should have tested the remaining 12.74 grams of tablets in the plastic bag. However, he has cited no authority for this proposition. Further, our Indiana Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in Woodford v. State, 752 N.E.2d 1278 (Ind. 2001), reh'g denied., cert. denied, reh'g denied. In the Woodford case, a jury convicted Woodford of Class A felony possession of cocaine in excess of three grams with intent to deliver. On appeal, Woodford argued that the State had failed to prove that the cocaine weighed three grams or more. Specifically, he contended that a forensic scientist had tested only two of the nine cocaine rocks seized, and the weight of those two rocks was only 0.76 gram of cocaine. According to Woodford, the forensic scientist's testimony was “insufficient to establish that the seven untested rocks were cocaine.” Id. at 1283. (cleaned up). However, our supreme court pointed out that the total weight of the drug and not its pure component should be considered when proving the weight of the drug. Id. Further, according to the supreme court, it was undisputed that the nine rocks weighed a total of 3.21 grams, and the two-rock representative sample from this group tested positive for cocaine. As such, the supreme court concluded that “the testing of a representative sample consisting of two rocks of cocaine was sufficient for Defendant's dealing in cocaine conviction[,]” and there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. Id.

[34] Here, as in Woodford, it is undisputed that the total weight of the tablets was 12.9 grams, and the one-tablet representative sample from this group tested positive for fentanyl. As in Woodford, the testing of a representative sample consisting of one fentanyl tablet was sufficient for Johnson's Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug conviction, and there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. See id.⁴

[35] Affirmed.

Vaidik, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-46-1-4.

2.   I.C. § 35-46-1-4.

3.   I.C. § 35-48-4-1. The jury also convicted Johnson of Level 6 felony dealing in marijuana, Level 6 felony obstruction of justice, and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia; however, Johnson does not appeal those convictions.

4.   Johnson also argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for Level 3 possession of a narcotic drug, which is a lesser-included offense of Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug. However, we need not address this issue because the trial court did not enter judgment of conviction on that count and we have found sufficient evidence to support his conviction for Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug. See Moone v. State, 250 N.E.3d 1101, 1109 n.8 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (declining to address the defendant's sufficiency issue regarding lesser-included offenses where the trial court did not enter judgment of conviction on those counts and where we found sufficient evidence to support the greater offense), trans. denied.

Pyle, Judge.