Stewart v. State, No. 1181S325
| Docket Nº | No. 1181S325 |
| Citation | 437 N.E.2d 1328 |
| Case Date | July 30, 1982 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 1328
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
Joseph D. Bradley, South Bend, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Carmen L. Quintana, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
PRENTICE, Justice.
Defendant (Appellant) was convicted of Child Molesting, Ind.Code Sec. 35-42-4-3(a) (Burns 1979) following a bench trial and was sentenced to thirteen (13) years imprisonment.
Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and asks us to determine that the testimony of the nine-year old male victim (ten years old at the time of trial) suffered from such inconsistencies and inherent improbability as to render it of no probative value.
The evidence most favorable to the State discloses that on the evening of September 21, 1979, the victim was left alone by his parents with money to buy his dinner. About 8:00 or 8:30 p. m. he went to Wendy's Restaurant. On the way home he passed the Fisca Service Station, where defendant worked as assistant manager.
Defendant had been acquainted with the victim and his parents for five or six years. He often gave "cherry bomb" rides to the neighborhood children, including the victim. The ride is so named because of a special muffler, which causes the engine to make loud noises, while the driver swerves the automobile for the child's amusement.
The victim requested a cherry bomb ride and Defendant consented but had to close the station first. At about 10:00 p. m., while Defendant finished the day's paperwork, the victim felt the need to urinate and "crouched himself" to avoid the urge. Defendant noticed his activity and asked, "What is that," to which the victim replied "Junior."
Page 1329
Defendant finished his work, and he and the victim entered his automobile, whereupon Defendant told the victim to open Junior. The victim opened his pants, and Defendant lifted the victim's underwear and rubbed his penis. Then the victim, at Defendant's request, rubbed the defendant's penis, which Defendant had taken out of his pants.
Defendant gave the victim a cherry bomb ride to the victim's home, and the victim invited Defendant in to see that it had been redecorated. Inside the house Defendant performed fellatio upon the victim and left at about 10:30 p. m.
The incident was not discovered until the victim told his best friend, who in turn told his mother, who informed the victim's parents and the police.
Additional evidence disclosed that the Defendant had molested another boy in the summer of 1980 on three separate occasions. At that time, Defendant had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mahla v. State, No. 985
...testimony of the victim. Tuggle v. State (1984), Ind., 457 N.E.2d 1094, 1096-97 and authorities cited; Stewart v. State (1982), Ind., 437 N.E.2d 1328. Comparatively minor inconsistencies in the victim's testimony go to the witness' credibility, which is for the trier of fact to determine. T......
-
Mullins v. State, No. 3-185A8
...238 Ind. 658, 154 N.E.2d 503, and Penn v. State (1957), 237 Ind. 374, 146 N.E.2d 240, for support. In Stewart v. State (1982), Ind., 437 N.E.2d 1328, at 1330 n. 2, the Supreme Court explained its holding in Thomas as "Defendant cites Thomas v. State (1958), 238 Ind. 658, 154 N.E.2d 503, whe......
-
Tuggle v. State, No. 1082S405
...for child molesting even though the victim is a minor. Jones v. State, (1983) Ind., 445 N.E.2d 98; Stewart v. State, (1982) Ind., 437 N.E.2d 1328; Snider v. State, (1980) Ind., 412 N.E.2d 230. It is also axiomatic that as a court of review we will neither Page 1097 judge the credibility of ......
-
Mahla v. State, No. 985
...testimony of the victim. Tuggle v. State (1984), Ind., 457 N.E.2d 1094, 1096-97 and authorities cited; Stewart v. State (1982), Ind., 437 N.E.2d 1328. Comparatively minor inconsistencies in the victim's testimony go to the witness' credibility, which is for the trier of fact to determine. T......
-
Mullins v. State, No. 3-185A8
...238 Ind. 658, 154 N.E.2d 503, and Penn v. State (1957), 237 Ind. 374, 146 N.E.2d 240, for support. In Stewart v. State (1982), Ind., 437 N.E.2d 1328, at 1330 n. 2, the Supreme Court explained its holding in Thomas as "Defendant cites Thomas v. State (1958), 238 Ind. 658, 154 N.E.2d 503, whe......
-
Tuggle v. State, 1082S405
...for child molesting even though the victim is a minor. Jones v. State, (1983) Ind., 445 N.E.2d 98; Stewart v. State, (1982) Ind., 437 N.E.2d 1328; Snider v. State, (1980) Ind., 412 N.E.2d 230. It is also axiomatic that as a court of review we will neither Page 1097 judge the credibility of ......