Brian C. Banks v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
02A05-1701-CR-55
Ind. Ct. App.Jul 21, 2017Background
- Brian C. Banks (father figure in household) was convicted by a jury of four counts of sexual misconduct with a minor for repeated sexual acts with K.C., a 15‑year‑old who had dated Banks’ daughter and visited the Banks home frequently from late 2013 through 2015.
- The jury convicted Banks of one Class B felony, one Class C felony, one Level 4 felony, and one Level 5 felony; the trial court imposed consecutive terms (10, 4, 6, and 3 years respectively) for an aggregate executed sentence of 23 years.
- The State’s case rested principally on K.C.’s testimony and circumstantial evidence: hundreds of texts from Banks professing love, gifts (including a class ring and other items), and other communications.
- Banks challenged the verdict as unsupported because K.C.’s testimony was allegedly “incredibly dubious,” pointing to inconsistencies and testimony from family members contradicting parts of her account.
- Banks also appealed sentencing, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by failing to adequately consider mitigating factors and that the aggregate 23‑year sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Banks) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence / incredible‑dubiosity rule | K.C.’s testimony and circumstantial evidence (texts, gifts) suffice to support convictions | K.C. was the sole witness to the sexual acts; her testimony contained contradictions and was inherently unbelievable | Court affirmed: K.C.’s testimony was not incredibly dubious; circumstantial evidence corroborated it and reasonable juror could convict |
| Sentencing — abuse of discretion / identification of mitigators | Trial court properly identified aggravators (violation of trust; egregious nature) and mitigators (no prior record; family support) | Trial court failed to give adequate weight to mitigators (lack of priors, employment, church ties, family hardship) | Court held no abuse: trial court considered mitigators; appellate court will not reweigh under the advisory scheme |
| Appellate Rule 7(B) — appropriateness of aggregate sentence | Sentence (advisory on each count; consecutive to 23 years) justified by repeated molestation, grooming, victim impact, violation of trust | Aggregate 23 years is excessive given Banks’ character and mitigating evidence | Court found sentence not inappropriate: nature of offenses and Banks’ conduct support consecutive advisory terms |
| Consecutive sentencing standard | Single aggravator can support consecutive/enhanced sentences | Argued crimes not significant enough to justify consecutive terms | Court affirmed consecutive terms, citing sufficiency of aggravating factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. State, 998 N.E.2d 724 (Ind. 2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (consideration of probative evidence and inferences in sufficiency review)
- Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749 (Ind. 2015) (formulation of the incredible‑dubiosity rule and limits on its use)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (requirements for sentencing statements and appellate review of sentencing)
- Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (Appellate Rule 7(B) standard for revising sentences)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (defendant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate)