Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-924 | November 8, 2018 Page 1 of 6

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Vincent M. Campiti

South Bend, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Matthew B. MacKenzie

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

David S. Willamowski,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

November 8, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-924

Appeal from the St. Joseph 

Superior Court

The Honorable Jeffrey L. Sanford, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

71D03-1605-F4-19

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-924 | November 8, 2018 Page 2 of 6

[1] David S. Willamowski appeals his conviction for Level 4 felony child 

molesting. He contends the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On May 6, 2016, eleven-year-old E.L. spent the night at her friend T.W.’s 

home. Willamowski is T.W.’s father. That night, T.W.’s mother, older brother 

(D.W.), and D.W.’s friend (C.H.) were also at the home. At some point late 

that night, D.W. went to bed in his room, and T.W. fell asleep in a recliner in 

the living room. C.H. and E.L. remained in the living room on their individual 

electronic devices. Willamowski came downstairs and joined them in the living 

room. Eventually, C.H., E.L., and Willamowski were all seated on the couch. 

C.H. was at one end intently focused on the game he was playing on his device. 

E.L. was sitting between C.H. and Willamowski.

[4] While seated next to E.L., Willamowski began touching her leg. He rubbed his 

hand on the middle of her thigh, including both her top and inner thigh area. 

E.L. was wearing leggings. He then moved his hand upward until he reached 

her vagina. He continued “rubbing in a circular motion” for several minutes

over her leggings. Transcript at 30. E.L. was scared and said nothing. 

Willamowski then lifted E.L. onto his lap, grabbed her left hand, and placed it 

on his thigh, squeezing her hand. He said, “Do you like that?” Id. at 31. He 

then continued “rubbing [her] vagina”. Id. After a few more minutes, E.L.

stood up and went upstairs to put on her pajamas.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-924 | November 8, 2018 Page 3 of 6

[5] Although he had been focused on his game, C.H. saw E.L. on Willamowski’s 

lap, saw him rubbing her leg near the top of her thigh, and heard him ask if she 

liked that. This made C.H. feel uncomfortable. C.H. moved to the other 

recliner after E.L. went upstairs to change.

[6] When E.L. returned downstairs, she asked C.H. if she could sleep on the 

recliner. He agreed and moved to the couch to sleep. T.W. was still asleep on 

the other recliner. Willamowski then stood up and said he was going up to bed. 

After a few minutes, E.L. began to cry, which woke up T.W. and C.H. She 

told T.W. about what had happened with Willamowski. T.W. was “scared and 

sad and she didn’t believe it.” Id. at 32. C.H. supported E.L. during this 

discussion. The three then went to sleep. 

[7] On May 20, 2016, the State charged Willamowski with one count of child 

molesting as a Level 4 felony. The first trial ended in a mistrial due to a 

deadlocked jury. Following a second jury trial, which commenced on February 

12, 2018, Willamowski was convicted as charged and sentenced to a six-year 

suspended sentence.

Discussion & Decision

[8] On appeal, Willamowski challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. When we 

consider a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh the 

evidence nor assess the credibility of the witnesses. Suggs v. State, 51 N.E.3d 

1190, 1193 (Ind. 2016). Instead, we consider only the evidence and reasonable 

inferences supporting the conviction. Id. We will affirm if there is probative 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-924 | November 8, 2018 Page 4 of 6

evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant 

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Further, “it is well settled that the 

uncorroborated testimony of the victim, even if the victim is a minor, is 

sufficient to sustain a conviction for child molesting.” Carter v. State, 31 N.E.3d 

17, 30 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.

[9] To convict Willamowski of child molesting as charged, the State was required 

to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Willamowski: 1) performed or 

submitted to fondling or touching of E.L.; 2) when E.L. was under the age of 

fourteen; 3) with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of E.L. or 

Willamowski. See Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(b). Touching alone, therefore, is not 

sufficient to constitute the crime of child molesting. Bass v. State, 947 N.E.2d 

456, 460 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. “The State must also prove beyond 

a reasonable doubt that the act of touching was accompanied by the specific 

intent to arouse or satisfy sexual desires.” Id. This intent element may be 

established by circumstantial evidence and inferred from the defendant’s 

conduct and the natural and usual sequence to which such conduct usually 

points. Id.

[10] Willamowski challenges only the intent element and argues that no credible 

evidence exists that his touching of E.L. was in an area where one could infer 

beyond a reasonable doubt that he was attempting to gratify anyone’s sexual 

desires. He asserts that an “equally plausible inference” is that he was just 

innocently rubbing her thigh. Appellant’s Brief at 15. Willamowski claims that 

E.L.’s testimony that he rubbed her vagina over her leggings is not trustworthy. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-924 | November 8, 2018 Page 5 of 6

In this regard, he notes that C.H. only saw him rubbing her thigh when he 

looked up from his device, that neither C.H. nor E.L. observed Willamowski 

with an erection, that he made no demands of E.L during or after the touching, 

and that E.L. had changed her testimony regarding the extent of the vaginal 

rubbing.

[11] We reject Willamowski’s blatant request for us to reweigh the evidence and 

judge witness credibility. Defense counsel presented each of these arguments to 

the jury, and the jury chose to find him guilty of child molesting. The verdict 

was supported by sufficient evidence. Indeed, E.L. testified that Willamowski 

began rubbing her thigh, including her inner thigh, while she sat next to him on 

the couch. Eventually, he moved his hand up her thigh and toward her vagina 

as he rubbed in a circular motion over her leggings. E.L., who was eleven years 

old at the time, said nothing to Willamowski because she was scared. After 

several minutes, he lifted her onto his lap and placed her left hand on his thigh. 

He asked her, “Do you like that?” Transcript at 31. He then resumed rubbing 

her vagina until E.L. stood up and went upstairs. E.L.’s testimony alone is 

sufficient to support the conviction. In addition to her testimony, C.H. testified 

that, despite being preoccupied with his device, he noticed E.L. on 

Willamowski’s lap, saw Willamowski rubbing E.L.’s upper thigh, and heard the 

question posed. Additionally, T.W. was awakened by her crying friend after 

Willamowski went to bed, and E.L. told her about the touching. Based on all 

of this evidence, the jury could have reasonably inferred that Willamowski 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-924 | November 8, 2018 Page 6 of 6

rubbed E.L.’s vagina with the intent to arouse or satisfy his or E.L.’s sexual 

desires.

[12] Judgment affirmed.

Brown, J. and Tavitas, J., concur.