Shaun Terrell Balkcom v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Feb 09 2015, 9:22 am
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 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Mark S. Lenyo Gregory F. Zoeller
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General
Kenneth E. Biggins
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Shaun Terrell Balkcom, February 9, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
71A03-1407-CR-254
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jerome Freese,
Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff
Cause No. 71D03-1204-FA-11
Mathias, Judge.
[1] Shaun Balkcom (“Balkcom”) was convicted in St. Joseph Superior Court of
Class A felony child molesting and Class C felony child molesting. The trial
court sentenced Balkcom to an aggregate term of thirty-seven years. Balkcom
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1407-CR-254 | February 9, 2015 Page 1 of 7
appeals and argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support
his convictions.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On January 15, 2011, thirteen-year-old T.J., who lived with her mother and two
sisters in the overcrowded home of her mother’s friend, was asleep on the floor
of the home’s living room, where she and her family regularly slept. T.J. was
wearing pajama pants, a shirt, and undergarments. T.J.’s mother, R.R., and
Balkcom, R.R.’s boyfriend, also slept on the floor. 1 T.J.’s older sister, S.J., slept
nearby on a chair or on the floor, and their youngest sister, K.J., was asleep on
a couch.
[4] At some point during the night, T.J. awoke to find Balkcom touching her
breasts and vagina. T.J. told Balkcom to stop. Balkcom covered T.J.’s mouth
with one hand and inserted his fingers into her vagina, then pulled down T.J.’s
pajama bottom and inserted his penis into her vagina. Balkcom then got up and
went upstairs.
[5] T.J., hysterical and crying, woke her mother and told her what had happened.
R.R. told T.J. to go upstairs with her sisters. T.J. went upstairs and used the
1
At trial, T.J. testified that R.R. slept between Balkcom and T.J. R.R., however, testified that Balkcom slept
next to T.J.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1407-CR-254 | February 9, 2015 Page 2 of 7
restroom but did not shower or change her clothes. Meanwhile, Balkcom left
the house.
[6] R.R. took T.J. to the hospital, where an examination was performed on T.J.
and T.J.’s clothing and DNA samples were collected. Tests on T.J.’s clothing
revealed a stain on her underpants that tested positive for semen. The sample,
however, was not large enough to test for DNA. Also found on T.J.’s
underpants was a segment of DNA that matched Balkcom’s profile.2
[7] On April 5, 2012, the State charged Balkcom with Count I, Class A felony child
molesting, alleging that Balkcom performed sexual intercourse with T.J.; Count
II, Class A felony child molesting, alleging that Balkcom performed deviate
sexual conduct with T.J. by penetrating T.J.’s sex organ with an object; and
Count III, Class C felony child molesting, alleging that Balkcom touched T.J.
in her vaginal area and/or her breasts with the intent to arouse or satisfy the
sexual desires of either T.J. or Balkcom. A jury trial was held from May 12 to
May 14, 2014. The jury convicted Balkcom of Counts II and III. On June 24,
2014, the trial court sentenced Balkcom to an aggregate term of thirty-seven
years imprisonment, thirty-two years for the Class A felony conviction, and five
years for the Class C felony conviction.
[8] Balkcom now appeals.
2
This profile was not unique to Balkcom, however, and could have belonged to one of Balkcom’s male
relatives or another male of the same profile.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1407-CR-254 | February 9, 2015 Page 3 of 7
Discussion and Decision
[9] Balkcom argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain his
conviction. Specifically, Balkcom claims that T.J.’s testimony was incredibly
dubious.
[10] Our standard of review with regard to sufficiency claims is well settled. We
neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses, and we
consider only the evidence favorable to the verdict and all reasonable inferences
that can be drawn therefrom. Newman v. State, 677 N.E.2d 590, 593 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1997). If substantial evidence of probative value exists from which a trier
of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, we will affirm the
conviction. Id. A conviction for child molesting may rest solely upon the
uncorroborated testimony of the victim. Turner v. State, 720 N.E.2d 440, 447
(Ind. Ct. App. 1999). Further, we are mindful that the trier of fact is entitled to
determine which version of the incident to credit. Barton v. State, 490 N.E.2d
317, 318 (Ind. 1986), reh’g denied.
[11] Balkcom claims that T.J.’s testimony was incredibly dubious because (1) “T.J.’s
claim that Balkcom inserted his fingers inside her vagina is inconsistent with
T.J.’s account [that Balkcom inserted his penis into her vagina] which she gave
to her mother immediately after she awoke her mother”; T.J.’s statements
regarding where her sister, S.J., was sleeping and whether Balkcom was
sleeping next to her were inconsistent with other witnesses’ testimony; and
“T.J.’s testimony that [Balkcom] fondled her, inserted his fingers in her vagina
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1407-CR-254 | February 9, 2015 Page 4 of 7
and then had intercourse with her, all while her mother slept soundly on the
other side of [] Balkcom is inherently improbable.” Appellant’s Br. at 14-15.
[12] We begin by noting that the incredible dubiosity rule applies only in very
narrow circumstances. See Love v. State, 761 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind. 2002).
The rule is expressed as follows:
If a sole witness presents inherently improbable testimony and there is
a complete lack of circumstantial evidence, a defendant’s conviction
may be reversed. This is appropriate only where the court has
confronted inherently improbable testimony or coerced, equivocal,
wholly uncorroborated testimony of incredible dubiosity. Application
of this rule is rare and the standard to be applied is whether the
testimony is so incredibly dubious or inherently improbable that no
reasonable person could believe it.
Id.
[13] Those cases where we have found testimony inherently improbable or of
incredible dubiosity have involved either situations where the facts as alleged
“could not have happened as described by the victim and be consistent with the
laws of nature or human experience,” Watkins v. State, 571 N.E.2d 1262, 1265
(Ind. Ct. App. 1991), aff’d in part and vacated in part, 575 N.E.2d 624 (Ind. 1991),
or the witness was so equivocal about the act charged that his uncorroborated
and coerced testimony “was riddled with doubt about its trustworthiness.” Id.
The case before us does not fall within either category.
[14] To the extent that T.J.’s testimony regarding her sleeping position relative to
that of Balkcom is inconsistent with her mother’s testimony, we note that this is
an issue of witness credibility. The function of weighing witness credibility lies
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1407-CR-254 | February 9, 2015 Page 5 of 7
with the trier of fact, not this court. Whited v. State, 645 N.E.2d 1138, 1141 (Ind.
Ct. App. 1995). We cannot reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the
witnesses. See Jones, 783 N.E.2d at 1139. Furthermore, we cannot say that
T.J.’s testimony that Balkcom molested her while her mother slept nearby was
so inherently improbable that no reasonable person could believe it. See Leyva v.
State, 971 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (the testimony of child molesting
victim that she awoke and felt defendant insert more than one of his fingers into
her vagina while defendant’s wife and defendant’s two other children slept on
the floor after watching movie was not inherently contradictory or so inherently
improbable that no reasonable person could believe it).
[15] Also, the fact that T.J. initially told her mother that Balkcom inserted his penis
into her vagina but not that Balkcom inserted his fingers into her vagina, then
testified at trial that Balkcom did both does not make her testimony incredibly
dubious. Importantly, the rule very narrowly applies to contradictions in the in-
court statements of a single witness, not contradictions between pre-trial
statements and trial testimony. Buckner v. State, 857 N.E.2d 1011, 1018 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2006). Balkcom has not pointed to any part of T.J.’s testimony at trial that
was inherently contradictory, and T.J. was never equivocal about whether the
molestation occurred. See Reyburn v. State, 737 N.E.2d 1169 (Ind. Ct. App.
2000) (testimony of child molestation victim that defendant engaged in sexual
intercourse with her in living room was not incredibly dubious, even if victim
originally told police that incident had occurred on couch and then later
testified that incident had originated on the couch and concluded on the floor, if
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1407-CR-254 | February 9, 2015 Page 6 of 7
she had failed to tell police that defendant had locked door of house while
molestation occurred, and if she told police that her father was the first person
that she told about incident and then later testified that her sister was the first
person she told). Compare Sisson v. State, 710 N.E.2d 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999),
trans. denied (witness’s testimony was found to be incredibly dubious when on
direct examination witness testified regarding defendant’s involvement in
burglaries and then recanted testimony on cross-examination).
[16] The jury heard T.J.’s testimony, had the opportunity to determine the relative
credibility of all of the witnesses, and found Balkcom guilty of two counts of
child molesting. On appeal, Balkcom asks this court to invade the province of
the jury by reweighing the evidence and reassessing witness credibility. We
decline his invitation. As for the broader question of sufficiency, we again note
that a conviction for child molesting may rest solely upon the uncorroborated
testimony of the victim. Turner, 720 N.E.2d at 447. Here, the jury’s
determination was supported not only by T.J.’s testimony, but also by the
testimony of S.J. that she woke briefly and noticed Balkcom pulling T.J.’s body
close to him and by DNA evidence collected from T.J.’s undergarments. For all
of these reasons, we conclude that the State presented evidence sufficient to
support Balkcom’s conviction.
[17] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1407-CR-254 | February 9, 2015 Page 7 of 7