GIVENS v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Stephen James Givens appeals his conviction for Level 6 felony domestic battery. He contends that the State presented insufficient evidence.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On July 19, 2025, Givens came home late to the residence that he shared with his wife, A.R., in Indianapolis. He was intoxicated and unable to unlock the door, so A.R. let him in and told him that he needed to lie down. Instead, Givens changed clothes and tried to start an argument with A.R. He then followed A.R. onto the porch. When his cigarette fell off the porch railing, Givens asked A.R. to pick it up, but she refused. He responded by hitting A.R. on the left side of her face, below her eye. A.R. then ran to her neighbor's home and called 911.

[4] Lawrence Police Department Officer Justin Rossillo was one of the officers that responded to the domestic disturbance call within five to ten minutes. He spoke with A.R. about the incident and observed that she was upset and crying and had a “slightly swollen” eye. Transcript at 84. A.R. provided Officer Rossillo with an account of what happened, after which Officer Rossillo took photographs of A.R.’s face. Officer Rossillo also spoke with Givens at the scene and described him as uncooperative, agitated, and intoxicated. Givens was arrested at the scene for domestic battery.

[5] The State charged Givens with domestic battery, elevated from a Class A misdemeanor to a Level 6 felony based on having a prior battery conviction. On September 29, 2025, he was tried by a jury and convicted as charged. The trial court subsequently sentenced him to 200 days in the Marion County Jail.

[6] Givens now appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Additional information will be provided below as needed.

Standard of Review

[7] When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence supporting a conviction, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses. Fix v. State, 186 N.E.3d 1134, 1138 (Ind. 2022). “When there are conflicts in the evidence, the jury must resolve them.” Young v. State, 198 N.E.3d 1172, 1176 (Ind. 2022). Thus, on appeal, we consider only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences supporting the conviction and will affirm “unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Fix, 186 N.E.3d at 1138 (quoting Jackson v. State, 50 N.E.3d 767, 770 (Ind. 2016)).

Sorgdrager v. State, 208 N.E.3d 646, 650 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied. In sum, the evidence does not need to overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; it is sufficient if an inference may be reasonably drawn from the evidence to support the conviction. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 147 (Ind. 2007).

Discussion & Decision

[8] To convict Givens of domestic battery, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally touched A.R., a family member, in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. See Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1). To elevate the offense to a Level 6 felony, the State had to prove that Givens had a prior, unrelated conviction for battery. See I.C. § 35-42-2-1.3(b)(1)(A).

[9] Givens stipulated below that he had a prior battery conviction, and he does not dispute that if he struck A.R. in the face as she alleged, such would constitute sufficient evidence establishing that he battered a family member. His argument on appeal is that the photographs of A.R.’s face taken shortly after the incident “do not appear [to] show any swelling to [A.R.’s] face.” Appellant's Brief at 7. Based on his interpretation of the photographs, Givens argues that the photographs contradict both A.R.’s testimony that she was struck by Givens and Officer Rossillo's testimony that he observed swelling to her face. Further, Givens notes that A.R. was unable to describe precisely how he struck her on the left side of her face.

[10] We reject Givens's blatant request to reweigh the evidence. He made this same argument to the jury.¹ The jury was not persuaded but rather chose to believe A.R.’s testimony that Givens struck her in the face. Further, while injury is not an element of the battery offense, both A.R. and Officer Rossillo testified that A.R. had swelling under her left eye. The evidence is not insufficient simply because the photographs could be interpreted as not showing an injury to A.R.’s eye, as any potential conflicts in the evidence were for the jury to resolve. See Young, 198 N.E.3d at 1176.

[11] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   During closing, asking the jury to “look at the photos very closely,” defense counsel argued in part: “This photo from the first time the officers talk to her, look at her face. There is no puffiness. Her face is perfectly symmetrical. There is no puffiness, there is no redness. This never happened[.]” Transcript at 105. Counsel later added: “[A.R.] is lying” and “pictures don't lie[.]” Id. at 106.

Altice, Judge.

Brown, J. and DeBoer, J., concur.