Benjamin Lee v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 49A05-1609-CR-2197

Between 2002 and 2005, when A.G. was 5–8 years old, Benjamin Lee (Mother’s then-partner) babysat A.G. and on multiple occasions forced her to perform oral sex and once attempted intercourse.
A.G. did not report at the time; she later told her mother while in junior high/high school, but Mother did not report because she believed the statute of limitations had passed.
In May 2015, after Lee called A.G. asking if their “secret” was still between them, A.G. reported the abuse to police.
The State charged Lee with four counts of Class A felony child molesting (three for deviate sexual conduct, one for sexual intercourse); jury convicted on three counts.
Trial court sentenced Lee to an aggregate 85 years with 25 years suspended; Lee appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient because the victim’s testimony was “incredibly dubious.”

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to sustain child-molesting convictions	State: A.G.’s testimony plus corroborating circumstantial evidence (mother’s testimony about changed behavior and prior disclosure) supports convictions	Lee: A.G.’s testimony is incredibly dubious due to inconsistencies and inability to recall surrounding details after many years	Court: Affirmed — A.G.’s testimony was not incredibly dubious; jury could reasonably find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency and credibility issues)
Edwards v. State, 753 N.E.2d 618 (Ind. 2001) (limits of the incredible-dubiosity rule)
Murray v. State, 761 N.E.2d 406 (Ind. 2002) (contradictions between trial and pretrial statements do not automatically invoke incredible-dubiosity)
Baker v. State, 948 N.E.2d 1169 (Ind. 2011) (recognizing that long delays can impair a child-victim’s memory of peripheral details)
Young v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (upholding molestation convictions based on victim testimony)