Andrew W. Haynes, Sr., Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Andrew W. Haynes, Sr., appeals his convictions of one count of Class A felony child molesting,¹ two counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor,² and one count of Level 5 felony incest.³ Haynes argues his convictions should be overturned because the trial court abused its discretion by permitting witnesses to testify that they saw a picture of Haynes's penis in a text message that he sent to his daughter. We affirm Haynes's convictions because any possible error from the admission of testimony about the image was harmless considering all the other evidence of his guilt in the record.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Haynes's wife gave birth to a daughter, S.H., in June 1995, and a son, A.H., six years later. Before S.H. was twelve years old, her parents separated, and thereafter S.H. and A.H. lived with their mother and regularly visited Haynes. During that time, Haynes lived with a woman named Jodie, and S.H., A.H., and Jodie's daughter S.F. slept in beds in the back room of Jodie's trailer. On “multiple” occasions, Haynes came into the bedroom late at night and touched S.H. while the other children were asleep. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 189.) At first, he rubbed “the inside of [her] thigh” over her clothes, (id. at 188), then he moved to rubbing her vagina over her clothes, and “then he went under the clothes.” (Id. at 188-89.) Haynes asked S.H. if she liked the way he was touching her, and S.H. said it was “weird” because she “didn't know it was wrong.” (Id. at 189.) Over time, Haynes progressed to putting his fingers inside S.H.’s vagina.

[3] When S.H. was thirteen, Haynes married Jodie, and they moved to a house. S.H. and A.H. continued visiting Haynes at the house, and Haynes continued touching S.H.’s genitals over and under her clothing. Then, during the second semester of her eighth-grade year, when S.H. got good grades, Haynes said he was going to reward S.H. for her grades by giving her money. In the evening, Haynes and S.H. left in Haynes's white van, which had curtains and blinds on the windows, to go to the ATM. Haynes instead drove to a shopping center and parked the van next to a dumpster and some trees. Haynes ordered S.H. to go into the back of the van where there was a bench seat and take off her pants. Haynes made S.H. face the back of the van, and he told her “it's okay.” (Id. at 199.) Haynes then put his penis into S.H.’s vagina, which was painful for S.H. She tried to get him to stop, but he pushed her against the seat so she could not get away as he had intercourse with her. Eventually, he removed his penis, ejaculated into some napkins, and told S.H. that he loved her. S.H.’s vagina hurt so badly that it was hard for her to sit in a seat for the ride back to their house. Haynes continued to have intercourse with S.H. during some of the times S.H. visited his house.

[4] At the end of S.H.’s eighth grade year, around the time she turned fourteen, custody of S.H. changed from her mother to Haynes, and then sexual contact between Haynes and S.H. became more frequent. On one occasion when S.H. had to be punished for misbehavior, Haynes put her face-down on the bed with her pants pulled down and whipped her with a belt. As S.H. was crying from the whipping, Haynes inserted his penis into her vagina and had intercourse with her while she was face-down on the bed. On another occasion, Haynes and S.H. were in his Mazda, and Haynes drove to a secluded area in the woods where he had intercourse with her. Haynes took S.H. to that secluded location “multiple” times to have intercourse with her. (Id. at 213.)

[5] In the fall of S.H.’s freshman year of high school, Haynes and Jodie separated, and Haynes and S.H. became homeless. They slept in the car, lived in a friend's camper, stayed in hotels, and stayed with Haynes's father. Haynes had intercourse with S.H. when they stayed in the camper and hotels. Finally, Haynes rented a place to live and began having intercourse with S.H. in that residence.

[6] During S.H.’s junior and senior years of high school, she lived in a house with A.H., Haynes, Haynes's girlfriend Jamie, and Jamie's kids. During those two years, S.H. had a good friend named Irisa Myers. On one occasion at Haynes's house, Irisa was talking to S.H. about running away from home because of problems with her dad and stepmom, and Haynes joined the conversation to tell Irisa “that he would show his love by having sex with his own daughter.” (Id. at 220.) On another occasion when S.H. was at Irisa's house, Irisa was using S.H.’s phone, and a text arrived from Haynes. Irisa opened the text and saw a picture of Haynes's penis, so she handed the phone to S.H., who responded to Haynes's text. Also, during S.H.’s junior year of high school, she began dating Kody Walker. S.H. told Walker that there would be times when she would not “want to be intimate” because she “would have had sex with [her] dad.” (Id. at 231.) When Walker heard this, he was very angry, and he confronted Haynes in the garage at Haynes's house.

[7] After high school, S.H. went to college for one semester in 2013 and then moved away with her fiancé. She gave birth to children in March of 2016 and March of 2017, and after her second child was born, she decided to take her children to visit her father. During a visit in the summer of 2017, S.H. left her children with Haynes's fiancée and went on a “tow run” with Haynes. (Id. at 238.) After they delivered the disabled vehicle to the mechanic's shop, Haynes parked the tow truck in a deserted area and told S.H. “to get in the back of the truck or [she]’ll get bruises.” (Id. at 239.) S.H. said “no” and “tried to get out of the truck and he locked the doors. And I couldn't escape.” (Id.) Haynes forced S.H. to perform oral sex, and then he had intercourse with her until he ejaculated inside her. Haynes then drove them back to his house, S.H. gathered her children and left, and she again cut off contact with Haynes.

[8] In 2019, S.H. realized the half-sister that her father had with Jodie would soon be turning twelve years old, which was the age when Haynes began molesting S.H. S.H. contacted Jodie to warn her about what Haynes had done to her. Jodie filed a custody motion regarding her children with Haynes, and S.H. testified during a custody hearing about sexual abuse by Haynes. Someone reported S.H.’s allegations, and police began an investigation.

[9] The State charged Haynes with Class A felony child molesting by intercourse or deviate sexual conduct when S.H. was thirteen years old, Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor when S.H. was fourteen years old, Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor when S.H. was fifteen years old, one count of Level 3 felony rape ⁴ that occurred when S.H. was an adult, and one count of Level 5 felony incest for the intercourse that occurred when S.H. was an adult. A jury found Haynes not guilty of the rape charge but guilty of the other charges. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a forty-year sentence for Class A felony child molesting, ten-year sentences for each Class B felony, and a three-year sentence for Level 5 felony incest. The trial court ordered the sentence for incest served consecutive to the other three sentences, which were to be served concurrently, for an aggregate sentence of forty-three years.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Haynes challenges the trial court's admission of testimony from both S.H. and Irisa about the text message that Haynes sent to S.H. that contained a picture of his penis. “A trial court has discretion regarding the admission of evidence and its decisions are reviewed only for abuse of discretion.” Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1193 (Ind. 2021). We may not reverse unless the trial court's decision was “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it and errors affect a party's substantial rights.” Id.

[11] Haynes argues the trial court's admission of the evidence was an abuse of its discretion under Indiana Evidence Rules 404(b)⁵ and 403.⁶ We need not review whether the trial court abused its discretion under those rules, however, because any error by the trial court was harmless. As our Indiana Supreme Court has explained:

An error is harmless when it results in no prejudice to the “substantial rights” of a party. The harmless-error analysis is a practical one, embodying “the principle that courts should exercise judgment in preference to the automatic reversal for error and ignore errors that do not affect the essential fairness of the trial.” Factors considered in a harmless error analysis “include the presence or absence of other, corroborating evidence on material points; whether the impermissibly admitted evidence was cumulative; the overall strength of the prosecution's case; the importance of the impermissible evidence in the prosecution's case; and the extent of cross-examination or questioning on the impermissibly admitted evidence.”

Hall, 177 N.E.3d at 1197 (internal citations omitted). “Ultimately, the error's probable impact is sufficiently minor when – considering the entire record – our confidence in the outcome is not undermined.” Carr v. State, 274 N.E.3d 444, 460 (Ind. 2026) (quoting Hayko v. State, 211 N.E.3d 483, 492 (Ind. 2023), reh'g denied).

[12] According to Haynes, this evidence of Haynes texting a picture of his genitals would have “overwhelm[ed] rational deliberation” by the jury. (Br. of Appellant at 17.) However, Irisa's testimony about Haynes texting a picture of his penis was much less damning than Irisa's testimony that Haynes admitted to her that he had sex with S.H. to show S.H. love. Moreover, after the defense put on witnesses to challenge S.H.’s credibility, the State called Walker, the high school boyfriend of S.H., who testified that S.H. told him about the abuse during high school and that he soon thereafter confronted Haynes about it in Haynes's garage. Thus, the State's case included “other, corroborating evidence on material points” of the State's case. Hall, 177 N.E.3d at 1197. In addition, S.H.’s testimony was extensive and her descriptions of specific incidents were detailed, which made the prosecution's case strong. We are confident the jury would have reached the same determination with or without the challenged evidence, and we therefore hold any error in its admission was harmless. See, e.g., Cutshall v. State, 166 N.E.3d 373, 380-81 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (holding erroneous admission of testimony about defendant's accessing of pornography on the internet was harmless in light of the victim's testimony and the other corroborating evidence), trans. denied.

Conclusion

[13] Because any possible error in the admission of the challenged evidence was harmless, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a)(1).

2.   Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9(a)(1).

3.   Ind. Code § 35-46-1-3.

4.   Ind. Code § 35-42-4-1(a)(1).

5.   Pursuant to that Rule, “[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Evidence Rule 404(b)(1). Such evidence may, nevertheless, “be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Evid. R. 404(b)(2). When the State intends to use such evidence at trial, upon request of the defendant, the prosecutor is to give notice prior to trial. Id.

6.   A trial court may exclude evidence under Evidence Rule 403 “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Ind. Evid. R. 403. “Unfair prejudice ․ looks to the capacity of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means, or the tendency of the evidence to suggest decision on an improper basis.” Hall, 177 N.E.3d at 1193 (quoting Camm v. State, 908 N.E.2d 215, 224 (Ind. 2009), reh'g denied).

May, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Felix, J., concur.