Ryan Clark v. State of Indiana

FILED
Oct 19 2016, 7:25 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kurt A. Young Gregory F. Zoeller
Nashville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
James B. Martin
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ryan Clark, October 19, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1601-CR-184
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Kurt M. Eisgruber,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G01-1406-FA-029404
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1601-CR-184 | October 19, 2016 Page 1 of 6
Statement of the Case
[1] Following his participation in a horrific home invasion, Ryan Clark (“Clark”)
was convicted of the following sixteen offenses: (1) two counts of rape as Class
A felonies; (2) three counts of criminal deviate conduct as Class A felonies; (3)
five counts of confinement as Class B felonies; (4) one count of robbery as a
Class C felony; (5) one count of carjacking as a Class C felony; (6) two counts
of battery as Class C felonies; and (7) two counts of battery as Class A
misdemeanors. He now appeals those convictions and argues that the evidence
is insufficient to support them. Specifically, he contends that the testimony of
victim A.M. (“A.M.”) was incredibly dubious. Finding that the incredible
dubiosity rule does not apply in this case, we affirm Clark’s convictions.
[2] Affirmed.
Issue
Whether there is sufficient evidence to support Clark’s
convictions.
Facts
[3] In September 2013, A.M. was sitting on her back patio when three men
wearing bandanas and clear plastic gloves approached her and ordered her into
her house at gunpoint. A.M. was subsequently ordered to go upstairs where
she joined her husband and three children, sixteen-year-old twin sons and a
seven-year-old son.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1601-CR-184 | October 19, 2016 Page 2 of 6
[4] While the family was in the upstairs bedroom, Clark told A.M. she had nice
breasts and ordered her to remove her shirt. When A.M. refused to do so in
front of her family, Clark pointed his gun at her face and ordered her, her
husband, and her children to all remove their shirts. This time everyone
complied with Clark’s order. Although Clark’s face was partially covered by
the bandana, A.M. was able to look at his eyes, which were illuminated by a
hall light.
[5] The family was then ordered to go downstairs to the living room. At this point,
none of the men were wearing their bandanas, and, as the family went down
the stairs, A.M. was able to get a good look at Clark’s face, which was
illuminated by a bright light. When everyone got to the living room, Clark
ordered A.M. to remove all of her clothes. When she again refused to do so in
front of her family, Clark ordered the entire family to “strip down naked” as he
pointed his gun at A.M. (Tr. 39). The family again complied with Clark’s
order.
[6] While the other gunmen loaded the family’s car with electronics, one of the
men took A.M. to the laundry room in the basement. Shortly thereafter, the
other two men joined them. All three men then ordered A.M. to perform oral
sex on them at gunpoint. At one point, A.M. opened her eyes and noticed a
birthmark on one of the men’s hip. A.M. was then taken to an adjacent
bathroom where each of the men raped her. Clark, who was no longer wearing
a bandana, then dragged A.M. over to the shower and poured soap and bleach
on her “to wash all the DNA off.” (Tr. 111). Clark briefly left A.M. in the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1601-CR-184 | October 19, 2016 Page 3 of 6
shower, and when he returned and saw A.M. peeking out, Clark punched her in
the face two times. At that moment, A.M. was just inches from Clark’s face,
and she got a good look at his face, which was illuminated by the bathroom
light.
[7] Clark then dragged A.M. out of the shower and into the basement bedroom,
where her family was sitting. While Clark and the other men were discussing
what to do with the family, A.M. got another good look at Clark’s face, which
was illuminated by the bedroom light. A.M. was only three feet away from
Clark, who was not wearing a bandana. After threatening to kill the family if
anyone contacted the police, the three men left in the family’s car with the
family’s laptops, video games and consoles, and televisions.
[8] Despite the threat on their lives, the family immediately contacted the police.
After arriving at the scene, one of the officers found a clear plastic glove during
a search of the house. Testing on the glove revealed the DNA of Shayne
Thompson (“Thompson”), who was the father of Clark’s sister’s baby. Clark
and Thompson had been seen together the week of the home invasion.
[9] In an attempt to identify the intruders, A.M. looked at 150 photographs over a
three-month period. When A.M. saw Clark’s picture, she said, “Oh, my God,
that’s him.” (Tr. 492). She had no doubt about her identification.
[10] Clark was initially charged in a twenty-three count information; however, the
State dismissed two of the counts. At Clark’s trial, A.M. identified Clark and
testified about the events of the home invasion. She responded as follows when
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1601-CR-184 | October 19, 2016 Page 4 of 6
asked why it was important for her to remember what the intruders looked like:
“Because I knew that I had to remember. If I could, I should. . . . That they
might find who did it, and I needed to know and remember what they looked
like.” (Tr. 150-51). Photographs admitted at trial revealed that Clark had a
birthmark on his hip matching the one seen by A.M. during one of the sexual
assaults. Father also testified about the home invasion; however, because his
glasses were knocked off of his face, Father’s vision was “fuzzy” and he was
unable to identify the intruders. (Tr. 282). The children did not testify.
[11] A jury convicted Clark of the remaining twenty-one counts. The trial court
vacated several of the convictions and sentenced Clark to 104 years. Clark now
appeals his convictions.
Decision
[12] Clark argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions because
A.M.’s testimony was incredibly dubious. The incredible dubiosity rule
recognizes that, in very rare cases, a witness’ credibility is so untrustworthy and
lacking as to justify reversal on appeal. Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 755 (Ind.
2015). In Moore, the Indiana Supreme Court explained that we should only
invoke this doctrine “where a sole witness presents inherently contradictory
testimony which is equivocal or the result of coercion and there is a complete lack
of circumstantial evidence of the appellant’s guilt.” Id. (emphases in original).
This standard is not an impossible burden to meet, but it is a difficult one, and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1601-CR-184 | October 19, 2016 Page 5 of 6
the testimony must be such that no reasonable person could believe it. Id. at
756.
[13] Here, our review of A.M.’s testimony reveals that the incredible dubiosity rule
simply does not apply in this case. A.M.’s testimony was not inherently
contradictory. She never wavered in her identification of Clark and had several
opportunities to view his uncovered face, including three times in well-lit
conditions. Further, the identifiable mark on Clark’s hip as well as DNA
evidence implicating his friend provided circumstantial evidence of Clark’s
guilt. Clark’s suggestions that A.M. was too distraught to make a reliable
identification or that there was not enough light for her to clearly see the
intruders are requests for us to reweigh the evidence. This we cannot do. See
Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007) (appellate courts do not reweigh
evidence or judge credibility of witnesses). As a result, there is sufficient
evidence to support Clark’s convictions.
[14] Affirmed.
Bradford, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1601-CR-184 | October 19, 2016 Page 6 of 6