WILLIAMS v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Darius L. Williams (“Williams”) was convicted after a bench trial of one count of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery ¹ and sentenced to one year executed at the Marion County Adult Detention Center. Williams raises one issue for our review: whether sufficient evidence was presented to support his conviction for domestic battery. Finding that sufficient evidence was presented, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Jerrica Semento (“Semento”) met Williams in February 2024, and the two began a sexual relationship in March 2024, with Williams moving in with Semento in June 2024. On the evening of January 3, 2025, Semento went home to pick up Williams after she finished work. Williams, who had been drinking, was “adamant” about going to “confirm some allegations” with his “baby mama” regarding gifts for their child. Tr. Vol. II p. 9, 14, 26. They then drove to Family Dollar, where his “baby mama” was working. Id. at 9.

[3] When they arrived, Williams asked Semento to stay in the car while he went into the store. Semento waited in the car but eventually decided to go into the store to see why it was taking longer than expected. When she entered the store, she saw Williams arguing with the woman and told Williams his “point [was] proven.” Id. at p. 11; Appellee's Br. p. 5. Semento did not confront or threaten anyone while inside the store. Semento then walked out of the store, got into her car, and attempted to leave. Williams and the other woman followed her out of the store while still arguing. Williams then smacked his hand on Semento's windshield to stop her from leaving. Semento stopped the vehicle and let him into the front passenger seat.

[4] As Semento drove through the parking lot attempting to exit, Williams grabbed her by the neck with his forearm, putting her “in basically a headlock.” Tr. Vol. II p. 14. While Williams had her in a headlock, he pulled her head down toward the gearshift, causing her head to collide with the rearview mirror, knocking off the mirror's frame. Williams released her from the headlock after the car swerved, allowing Semento to put the car in park.

[5] Semento then ran out of the vehicle into a nearby liquor store and called the police. Williams fled across the street and was eventually intercepted by the police. When the police spoke with Semento, they observed redness on the left side of her face and neck.

[6] On January 4, 2025, the State charged Williams with one count of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery. On November 11, 2025, the trial court conducted a bench trial. During the bench trial, Semento testified that her relationship with Williams was “sexual” and that Williams “was a live-in friend with benefits.” Id. at 8. At the end of the trial, the court found Williams guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Williams to one year executed. Williams now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Williams argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his conviction. When there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “[w]e neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility.” Gibson v. State, 51 N.E.3d 204, 210 (Ind. 2016), cert. denied. Instead, we consider only that evidence most favorable to the judgment together with all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. “We will affirm the judgment if it is supported by substantial evidence of probative value even if there is some conflict in that evidence.” Id. Further, “[w]e will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 696 (Ind. 2017).

[8] To convict Williams of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, the State had to prove that he knowingly or intentionally touched a family or household member in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. Indiana Code section 35-42-2-1.3(a). “Any touching, however slight, may constitute a battery.” Impson v. State, 721 N.E.2d 1275, 1285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). A “family or household member” for the purposes of the domestic battery statute is defined in Indiana Code section 35-31.5-2-128. Jackson v. State, 165 N.E.3d 641, 646 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). The definition includes an individual who “is or was engaged in a sexual relationship with the other person.” I.C. § 35-31.5-2-128(a)(3).

[9] Williams argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for domestic battery. Specifically, he contends that the State failed to prove the family or household member element of domestic battery. He asserts that since Semento did not testify that, at the time of the incident, that they were romantically involved, one could speculate that they were roommates, which is not included in “family or household member” under Indiana Code section 35-31.5-2-128. Appellant's Br. p. 9 (emphasis added). Williams also points to alternative explanations for Semento's injuries that were not caused by Williams.

[10] The evidence most favorable to the judgment established that Williams knowingly or intentionally touched Semento, a family or household member, in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. I.C. § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1). Semento testified that Williams was angry. As Semento drove out of the parking lot, Williams grabbed her by the neck, putting her in a headlock, and pulled her head down towards the gear shifter. The police observed redness on the left side of her face and neck, which corroborated Semento's testimony. An individual is a “family or household member” if the individual “is or was engaged in a sexual relationship with the other person.” I.C. § 35-31.5-2-128(a)(3). Semento testified that she and Williams began a sexual relationship in March 2024, ten months before the incident, and she called him “a live-in friend with benefits.” Tr. Vol. II pp. 8–9. This evidence was sufficient to enable a reasonable fact finder to conclude that Semento is a family or household member under the statute. I.C. § 35-31.5-2-128(a)(3).

[11] Williams invites us to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. Gibson, 51 N.E.3d at 210. We therefore conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to support Williams's conviction for domestic battery.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1)

Foley, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and Weissmann, J., concur.