Pearson v. State, 885S323
| Decision Date | 26 December 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 885S323,885S323 |
| Parties | Royal Lynn PEARSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Aaron E. Haith, Choate Visher & Haith, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Marguerite M. Sweeney, Attys. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted in a jury trial of Child Molesting, a Class C felony. He was also found to be an habitual offender. He received an eight (8) year sentence enhanced by thirty (30) years by reason of his status as an habitual offender.
Appellant was a live-in boyfriend of the victim's mother. In June of 1984, the victim, a girl age ten, was at home with her nine-year-old brother and appellant. Her mother had left the home to go to the store. The victim went into the bathroom and shut the door. Shortly thereafter, appellant entered the bathroom without knocking. He forced the victim to perform fellatio. Earlier that afternoon, in the presence of the victim's brother, appellant had "french kissed" the victim. The victim testified that on other occasions, prior to June 11, 1984, the appellant had "put his finger in my uh, my private." She testified that on another occasion, while her mother was sitting next to her, she was required to masturbate appellant.
The victim's mother testified that sometime in June of 1984 the victim complained that "Royal tried to touch me down there." She said she confronted appellant but he denied touching the victim. She testified that she saw appellant "french kiss" the victim and told him to stop. On another occasion she saw the victim rubbing her hand on appellant's penis and told her not to do that anymore. She also stated that appellant told her he intended to impregnate the victim at age eighteen because the witness could not have any more children.
Appellant claims the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction because the testimony of the prosecuting witness is not of such credibility as to constitute evidence of probative value to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He makes the claim that the prosecuting witness' testimony is uncorroborated; however, the record does not support him in this regard. The victim's brother witnessed appellant follow her into the bathroom where one of the offenses allegedly occurred. The brother testified that he witnessed appellant "french kiss" his sister prior to going into the bathroom. The victim's mother testified as stated above.
Even if the prosecuting witness' testimony was uncorroborated, it would be sufficient to sustain appellant's conviction. Jones v. State (1983), Ind., 445 N.E.2d 98. This Court will not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Brady v. State (1984), Ind., 463 N.E.2d 471. There is ample evidence of probative value in this case to sustain the verdict of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Borkholder v. State
...N.E.2d 159, 161-62. We also note that a conviction may be based on the sole uncorroborated testimony of a minor victim. Pearson v. State (1985), Ind., 486 N.E.2d 540, 541; Smith v. State (1982), Ind., 432 N.E.2d 1363, 1373. The victim's testimony, that described how, on several occasions du......
-
Ruel v. State
...Ind.App., 486 N.E.2d 623, 626. The conviction may stand solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a minor witness, Pearson v. State (1985), Ind., 486 N.E.2d 540, 541; Finchum v. State (1984), Ind.App., 463 N.E.2d 304, 307. However, where the conviction is based solely on the testimony of an......
-
Nelson v. State
...N.E.2d 711. In a case of this nature, a conviction may stand solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a minor witness. Pearson v. State (1985), Ind., 486 N.E.2d 540. We have stated that when a conviction is based solely on the testimony of an inherently unbelievable witness or where such t......
-
Stewart v. State, 71S00-8612-CR-1067
...the crime. The uncorroborated testimony of a minor is sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty of child molesting. See Pearson v. State (1985), Ind., 486 N.E.2d 540. The confusion about the date of the incident does not render the victim's testimony inherently incredible. There was substan......