Hakeem Deon Pittman, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Following a jury trial, Hakeem Deon Pittman appeals his convictions of three counts of Level 1 felony child molesting and one count of Level 5 felony sexual misconduct with a minor. His only contention is that there is insufficient evidence to support the convictions. Finding that there is sufficient evidence, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In the fall of 2022, thirteen-year-old Victim moved in with her aunt, Aunt 1, to attend eighth grade at a nearby school. Her other aunt, Aunt 2, lived in the same apartment building, and Victim would stay with both aunts. By 2023, Victim was primarily staying in Aunt 2's apartment with Aunt 2's husband, Pittman.

[3] One day soon after she had moved in with Pittman and Aunt 2, Victim received a text that she initially thought was someone she knew from school. The person texting her suggested that Victim “try something with [her] uncle[.]” Tr. v. III at 46. Shortly after Victim received that text, Pittman came out of his room to meet Victim in the living room, and he suggested that Victim “play truth or dare” with him. Id. at 47. While playing truth or dare, Pittman suggested that Victim touch his penis. Victim “didn't want to” but eventually complied. Id. at 48. Pittman then asked Victim to perform oral sex on him, and again, Victim did not want to comply but eventually did so.

[4] In January of 2023, while Victim was still thirteen years old and was babysitting at Aunt 1's apartment, Pittman texted her to ask her if she wanted to come over for some chips while Aunt 2 was not home. Victim agreed and, after she came over, Pittman once again asked Victim to suck his penis, and she complied.

[5] Pittman also had sexual intercourse with Victim more than once. During one encounter when Victim was still thirteen years old, which Victim believed “was [her] very first time[,]” Pittman “put his penis in [Victim's] vagina[,]” which made her body feel “uncomfortable.” Id. at 56-57. Pittman also “tried to put his penis in [her] behind” but “it didn't work ․ [so] he stopped and put it back in [her] vagina.” Id. at 58. Victim said it was painful and described it as “how you feel kind of constipated and trying to take a number 2, but instead of going out it goes in.” Id.

[6] On another occasion when Victim was in her bedroom, Pittman asked her to come over to his bedroom because “he wanted to have sex[.]” Id. at 53. In Pittman's bedroom, he grabbed Victim's breasts, touched her vagina, and eventually had sexual intercourse with Victim. Victim described lying on her back while Pittman laid on top of her with “his penis in [her] vagina.” Id. at 54.

[7] Pittman regularly sent Victim text messages in which he asked Victim to engage in sexual activity and then asked Victim to delete the messages, which she often did. On May 4, 2023, Pittman and Victim had the following text conversation:

Pittman: Remember delete these messages but u don't like me texting u do u cause u know what I'm go ask

Victim: The answer is always going to be no so stop asking

Pittman: I know I'm just trying to see why u want [sic] do it for one more time just asking

Victim: No stop asking

Ex. at 12-13.

[8] On May 12, Pittman messaged Victim again as follows:

Pittman: I forgot to tell u u don't have to reply back but make sure delete this I had dream about u last night

Victim: And what was it about?

Pittman: U was sucking it while I was rubing [sic] ur boobs

Pittman: Delete this after this I'm done texting did u like sucking it

Victim: Bro calm down stop having these types of conversations with me

Id. at 14. Pittman even more explicitly asked Victim to engage in sexual activity in several other text conversations; for example, on September 18, he explicitly requested that Victim either perform oral sex on him or “watch[ ]” as he pleasured himself. Id. at 20. Eventually, Victim stopped deleting the messages because she “got tired [and] wanted him to stop asking.” Tr. v. III at 60.

[9] On April 27, 2024, Pittman again asked Victim to engage in sexual activity, asking her, “plz I know u not go let me stick it in can I put it in ur mouth or rub it again ur clit[,]” Ex. at 24, and, “Least help me Jack off and cum or let me feel on u[,]” Id. at 26. Victim refused and texted her mother because she “wanted it to stop.” Tr. v. III at 74. Victim told her mother that Pittman had touched her inappropriately and had sex with her. Victim's mother went to the police station to report what Victim had told her, then went over to Aunt 2's apartment with the police to get Victim. The police arrested Pittman on the scene.

[10] On April 29, 2024, the State charged Pittman with three counts of Level 1 felony child molesting, one count of Level 4 felony child molesting, and one count of Level 6 felony dissemination of matter harmful to minors. On December 30, 2025, the State amended its charges to three counts of Level 1 felony child molesting and one count of Level 5 felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

[11] On January 12 through January 14, 2026, the State tried Pittman before a jury. At the jury trial, Victim testified to the facts as stated above. The jury found Pittman guilty as charged. Following the trial, the court sentenced Pittman to thirty-two years on each count of Level 1 felony child molesting and three years for Level 5 felony sexual misconduct with a minor, with one Level 1 felony count to run concurrently and the remaining counts to run consecutively, for a total commitment of sixty-seven years in the Department of Correction. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[12] Pittman challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence needed to support a criminal conviction,

we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses․. [W]e only consider the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from such evidence. A conviction will be affirmed 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. It is the job of the fact-finder to determine whether the evidence in a particular case sufficiently proves each element of an offense, and we consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the [fact-finder's] ruling.

Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066-67 (Ind. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Moreover, we note that “[t]he testimony of a sole child witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction for molestation.” Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230, 1238 (Ind. 2012); see also, e.g., Bowles v. State, 737 N.E.2d 1150, 1152 (Ind. 2000) (“A victim's testimony, even if uncorroborated, is ordinarily sufficient to sustain a conviction for child molesting.”).

[13] To support Pittman's three counts of child molesting, as Level 1 felonies, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Pittman (2) who was at least twenty-one years of age (3) three times (4) knowingly or intentionally (5) performed or submitted to sexual intercourse or other sexual conduct ¹ (6) with Victim (7) when she was under fourteen years of age. See Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a)(1). To support Pittman's conviction for sexual misconduct with a minor as a Level 5 felony, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Pittman (2) who was at least eighteen years of age (3) knowingly or intentionally (4) performed or submitted to sexual intercourse or other sexual conduct (5) with Victim (6) when she was under sixteen years of age. I.C. § 35-42-4-9(a). “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 v. State, 31 N.E.3d 17, 30 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (citation omitted), trans. denied.

[14] At trial, Victim testified that on at least three occasions when she was thirteen years old, Pittman ² engaged in either sexual intercourse or other sexual conduct with her. Specifically, she described two occasions that took place when she was thirteen years old and Pittman engaged in acts involving his penis and Victim's mouth. She described another occasion when she was thirteen years old when Pittman penetrated her vagina with his penis. And Victim testified that, when she was less than sixteen years old, Pittman once again penetrated her vagina with his penis.³ That testimony alone is sufficient to support Pittman's four criminal convictions. See, e.g., Hoglund, 962 N.E.2d at 1238. But Victim's testimony was also corroborated by copies of text messages between her and Pittman, admitted as exhibits, in which he repeatedly asked her to engage in sexual conduct with him and asked her to delete the text messages.

[15] Victim's testimony and the exhibits admitted into evidence are sufficient evidence to support all four of Pittman's convictions. His contentions to the contrary are merely requests that we reweigh the evidence and/or judge witness credibility, neither of which we may do. See, e.g., Willis, 27 N.E.3d at 1066. We affirm Pittman's convictions.

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   “Other sexual conduct” is defined as “an act involving: (1) a sex organ of one (1) person and the mouth or anus of another person; or (2) the penetration of the sex organ or anus of a person by an object.” I.C. § 35-31.5-2-221.5.

2.   Pittman does not dispute that he was at least twenty-one years old at all relevant times.

3.   Thus, this case is not comparable to Padilla v. State, 259 N.E.3d 356 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), cited by Pittman. In Padilla, unlike here, there was no testimony or any other evidence showing child molesting by the defendant's penetration of the victim, only attempted penetration/child molesting. Id. at 360.

Bailey, Judge.

Brown, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.