J.S., Appellant-Respondent v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] A juvenile court determined J.S. committed the delinquent act of Level 4 felony child molesting. J.S. appeals, alleging the evidence is insufficient to sustain the court's judgment. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On July 22, 2023, five-year-old I.M. was camping with her family, including her father and her two brothers, in Franklin County. Their camper had a bedroom with bunk beds that were visible from the entrance of the camper. See Tr. Vol. II p. 33. I.M. was a “petite” little girl with a “speech impairment.” Id. Then twelve-year-old J.S. and his family were also camping near I.M.’s family.¹ J.S. was a “much bigger kid and a lot older” than I.M. Id. at 44.

[3] Some time that day, with I.M.’s father's permission, J.S. went into their camper to play with I.M.’s brothers. Eventually, only J.S., I.M., and I.M.’s seven-year-old brother remained in the camper. J.S. gave his phone to I.M.’s brother and told him to “go on the top bunk and don't look.” Id. at 22. J.S. then got on the bottom bunk with I.M.

[4] I.M.’s father approached the camper and called out for her several times. When she did not respond, he entered the camper and saw J.S. and I.M. on the bottom bunk. He saw I.M. lying on her stomach and J.S. lying on top of her. I.M.’s pants and underwear were pulled down to her ankles, and J.S. was wearing only a shirt. When J.S. saw I.M.’s father, he got up off of I.M., and I.M.’s father saw J.S.’s exposed genitals. I.M.’s father dragged J.S. out of the camper and back to his family. When he returned to I.M., she was “[v]ery quiet, scared, confused, ․ [and] didn't know what was going on or what was happening.” Id. at 32.

[5] I.M.’s father called the police immediately and took I.M. to the hospital for an examination the next day. Swabs from I.M.’s inner thighs and abdomen showed a combination of I.M.’s and J.S.’s DNA. The DNA evidence from I.M.’s abdomen was one trillion times more likely to be from I.M. and J.S. than from I.M. and any other person, while the evidence from her thigh was “2.7 times more likely” to be from I.M. and J.S. Id. at 59. The swab from her abdomen provided “very strong support” and the swab from her thighs provided “limited support” that J.S. was the contributor, but both swabs “still included” J.S.’s DNA. Id. at 58, 59.

[6] When police formally interviewed J.S., he provided inconsistent statements. He initially told police that “nothing had gone on as far as sexual activity between him and [I.M.]” Id. at 41. Then J.S. said he and I.M. pulled their pants and underwear down to their ankles and “messed around.” State's Ex. 1 at 13:20- 13:35. J.S. finally told police “he was lying on his back, and [I.M.] was sitting on top of him[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 42; see also State's Ex. 1 at 26:00-27:00.

[7] The State filed a delinquency petition alleging J.S. committed Level 4 felony child molesting. Following a fact-finding hearing in June 2025, the court found J.S. committed the delinquent act. The court awarded wardship of J.S. to the Indiana Department of Correction and suspended his commitment to probation. J.S. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] J.S. contends the State presented insufficient evidence to support his adjudication. Our standard of reviewing sufficiency claims in juvenile cases is well settled:

When reviewing a juvenile delinquency adjudication, we will consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the judgment. We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility. If there is substantial evidence of probative value from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile committed the delinquent act, we will affirm the adjudication.

B.R. v. State, 823 N.E.2d 301, 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (citations omitted).

[9] To prevail on its delinquency petition, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that J.S., with I.M., a child under the age of fourteen, performed or submitted to any fondling or touching of either I.M. or himself with the intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desires of either I.M. or himself. Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(b) (2022). J.S. challenges only whether the State proved he had the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of himself or I.M. He claims the State presented evidence of “mere touching” which is not enough for a child molestation conviction. Appellant's Br. p. 5; see Carter v. State, 31 N.E.3d 17, 30 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (“[m]ere touching alone is insufficient” to prove child molesting), trans. denied. He also alleges there was no evidence that their “genitals were involved” in the touching. Appellant's Br. p. 5.

[10] “The intent element of child molesting may be established by circumstantial evidence and may be inferred from the actor's conduct and the natural and usual consequence to which such conduct usually points.” Carter, 31 N.E.3d at 30. Age differential is also an important factor that should be considered when determining a minor's criminal liability for child molestation. T.G. v. State, 3 N.E.3d 19, 25 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.

[11] Here, there are several relevant circumstances to determine whether J.S. touched I.M. with the intent to arouse or satisfy his sexual desires. First, J.S. was a “much bigger” and “a lot older” kid than the petite, five-year-old I.M. Tr. Vol. II p. 44. Next, J.S. isolated I.M. by giving her seven-year-old brother a phone and telling him to go to the top bunk and “don't look.” Id. at 22. Then, he got into the bottom bunk alone with I.M. While I.M. was lying on her stomach with her pants and underwear pulled down to her ankles, J.S. was lying on top of her while also nude from the waist down. Whether or not his genitals touched her genitals, it is reasonable to infer not only that touching generally occurred but that J.S.’s exposed genitals were touching I.M. at that point. And it is likewise reasonable to infer from J.S.’s conduct that he intended to satisfy his sexual desire because such satisfaction or arousal is a natural and usual consequence of laying down on top of another person in bed when both are nude from the waist down. See Carter, 31 N.E.3d at 30.

[12] The remaining circumstantial evidence further corroborates this conclusion. J.S.’s DNA was located on I.M.’s abdomen and between her thighs. He initially told police that nothing happened with I.M., then admitted that he got into the bed with her and “messed around[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 42. He then offered that I.M. was on top of him in the bed at some point, while their pants and underwear were pulled down to their ankles. A reasonable fact finder could infer from the totality of the circumstances that J.S. intended to arouse or satisfy his own sexual desires. We thus affirm the juvenile court's judgment.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   J.S.’s age is not in evidence; but his date of birth and age at the time of the act was indicated in the State's delinquency petition. App. Vol. II p. 29.

Scheele, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.