John M. Phillips, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Following a jury trial, John Phillips appeals his conviction for Level 5 felony domestic battery,¹ arguing the State presented insufficient evidence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Alexis Smith and her two nine-year-old children lived with Phillips at his home in Whitley County. In February 2024, Smith started a new job and had to leave the house fifteen minutes before her children left for school, so Phillips helped the children get on the bus.

[3] On the morning of March 5, 2024, one of the children, Victim, and Phillips got into an argument about getting ready for school. Both children missed the bus, and Phillips dropped them off at school late. When Victim entered the school, she appeared “physically upset[.]” Tr. Vol. 2 at 163. She told her teacher Phillips “choked her” because “he was mad at her ․ for not getting into the car on time.” Id. at 163–64. Victim “put her hands around her throat” to demonstrate what happened. Id. at 163. After speaking with Victim, the teacher filed a report with the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”).

[4] As soon as she arrived home from school that afternoon, Victim spoke with Smith. Victim stated: “[Phillips] choked me and put his hands around my neck” because “[h]e was mad with me[.]” Id. at 127, 132. Not long after Victim's conversation with Smith, DCS caseworker Nicoma Kirkpatrick arrived and interviewed Victim. Victim described and demonstrated how Phillips choked her. The choking took place in the laundry room and ended when Phillips “pushed her back[.]” Id. at 176.

[5] A few days later, Detective David Calhoun interviewed Victim. She told Detective Calhoun that Phillips “choked and pushed” her because she “kept crying ․ and it make [sic] him mad.” Ex. Vol. 3, page 5 at 2:56, 11:33–11:44. She described the choking as “a little painful” and said her “bones were shivering” because Phillips “hurt [her] neck.” Id. at 3:08–3:41. She demonstrated the choking by grabbing her neck with both hands, arms uncrossed and palms touching her neck. She said she was pushed from the laundry room into the kitchen, where her sister was eating breakfast.

[6] Detective Calhoun then interviewed Phillips. Phillips recalled feeling frustrated and raising his voice that morning. He mentioned placing his hands on Victim's shoulders in the past to help her calm down. When Detective Calhoun asked if he did so the morning of the incident, Phillips gave varied answers. One time he said he did not remember, while another time he said he could have. See Tr. Vol. 2 at 100. The State charged Phillips with Level 6 felony domestic battery and Level 6 felony strangulation.

[7] On April 17, 2025, the trial court held a protected person hearing to determine whether Victim could testify in front of a jury. Psychologist Dr. Lisa Wooley met with Victim three times in February 2025 and testified about her observations of Victim. She explained Victim demonstrated symptoms “consistent with autism spectrum disorder” including “delays in cognitive functioning and ․ symptoms of social immaturity.” Id. at 146, 148.² She described Victim's mannerisms as “more like a kindergartner or first grader” than a nine-year-old. Id. at 148. When Dr. Wooley asked Victim questions about Phillips, she noticed “it was a struggle for her and it created a high level of anxiety.” Id. at 151. Despite her anxiety, Victim shared with Dr. Wooley that Phillips choked her and demonstrated how he did it.

[8] Victim also testified remotely at the protected person hearing, stating Phillips “didn't actually choke me. He just grabbed my hands, grabbed my neck with his bare hands and then pushed me down.” Ex. Vol. 3 at 65; see also Tr. Vol. 2 at 111.

[9] After the hearing, the trial court found testifying would cause Victim “such extreme distress that she would not be able to communicate” and ruled Victim's out-of-court statements should be allowed at trial. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 80. Based on Victim's testimony at the hearing, the State amended the charges. Phillips proceeded to jury trial in January 2026 on two counts of Level 5 felony domestic battery.³

[10] At trial, Dr. Wooley, Kirkpatrick, Smith, and Victim's teacher all testified about Victim's statements to them. The jury watched a recording of Detective Calhoun's interview with Victim. At the request of Phillips’ counsel, Detective Calhoun also read into the record portions of Victim's testimony from the protected person hearing. Victim's sister testified for the defense. She testified she did not “really remember” the morning of the incident or seeing Phillips push Victim but did recall speaking with DCS and Detective Calhoun. Tr. Vol. 2 at 187.

[11] The jury returned a verdict of guilty on Count 1 and not guilty on Count 2. The trial court sentenced Phillips to four years.

Standard of Review

[12] Phillips argues there was insufficient evidence to support his domestic battery conviction. A sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim warrants a “deferential standard of review in which we ‘neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility[.]’ ” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 570 (Ind. 2018), cert. denied). Instead, we respect the factfinder's exclusive province to weigh conflicting evidence, Phipps v. State, 90 N.E.3d 1190, 1195 (Ind. 2018), and consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the judgment of the trier of fact, Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1191 (Ind. 2021). We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Teising v. State, 226 N.E.3d 780, 783 (Ind. 2024). It is “not necessary that the evidence ‘overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.’ ” Sallee v. State, 51 N.E.3d 130, 133 (Ind. 2016) (quoting Moore v. State, 652 N.E.2d 53, 55 (Ind. 1995)).

There is sufficient evidence Phillips acted in a rude, insolent, or angry manner.

[13] Phillips argues there was insufficient evidence “to prove he was acting in a manner that was rude, insolent, or angry[.]” Appellant's Br. at 13. He claims Victim's statements about his demeanor were “inconsistent and insufficient” compared to his statements to Detective Calhoun about calming her down or to her sister's testimony. Id.

[14] A person commits Level 5 felony domestic battery when they are over eighteen years of age and knowingly or intentionally touch a family or household member under fourteen years of age in a rude, insolent, or angry manner resulting in bodily injury. I.C. § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1), (c)(5)(A).⁴

[15] “When there are conflicts in the evidence, the jury must resolve them.” Young v. State, 198 N.E.3d 1172, 1176 (Ind. 2022). We cannot reweigh the evidence, we can only consider the evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the judgment. See Hall, 177 N.E.3d at 1191. Victim demonstrated multiple times how Phillips put his hands on her neck. She remarked several times that Phillips was mad or upset with her when he did it. During his interview with Detective Calhoun, Phillips recalled being frustrated and raising his voice that morning. There is sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer Phillips acted in a “rude, insolent, or angry manner.” I.C. § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1).

Conclusion

[16] Sufficient evidence supports Phillips’ conviction.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1), (c)(5)(A) (2021).

2.   Victim had received an autism diagnosis through her school prior to the incident.

3.   Count 2 specifically charged Phillips with Level 5 domestic battery for “pushing [Victim] to the ground[.]” Tr. Vol. 2 at 81, 209; see also Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 91, 101.

4.   Phillips argues there was insufficient evidence to prove the element of bodily injury, see Appellant's Br. at 10, but fails to develop a cogent argument supported by relevant legal authority. Phillips waived this argument. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). Waiver notwithstanding, there is sufficient evidence to prove bodily injury. Indiana Code Section 35-31.5-2-29 defines bodily injury as “any impairment of physical condition, including physical pain.” Victim told Detective Calhoun the choking was “a little painful” and “hurt her neck.” Ex. Vol. 3, page 5 at 3:08–3:41. “[W]e have never said a particular level of pain is required in order to ․ satisfy the definition of bodily injury.” Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 138 (Ind. 2012). Even a small amount of pain is sufficient evidence to prove bodily injury. See id. at 137–38.

Kenworthy, Judge.

Mathias, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.