CC v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
27A02-1611-JV-2960
| Ind. Ct. App. | Apr 12, 2017Background
- Juvenile C.C., age 14, was charged in 2015 with multiple counts of delinquent conduct that, if committed by an adult, would constitute child molesting (Level 3 and Level 4 felonies) based on alleged sexual contact with seven-year-old S.B.
- S.B., who was being evaluated for possible ADHD/autism and had displayed sexualized behavior, reported that C.C. allowed S.B. to perform oral sex and that C.C. showed him videos depicting oral sex.
- The State filed a delinquency petition in October 2015; a fact-finding hearing occurred August 31, 2016.
- After the State’s evidence and testimony from S.B., the juvenile court found C.C. not delinquent on some counts but entered a true finding on one Level 3 child-molesting count; another Level 3 count was dismissed.
- At disposition, the court ordered probation and suspended detention, plus counseling and family services; C.C. appealed the adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of intent for Level 3 child molesting | State: S.B.’s testimony that C.C. permitted oral sex and showed videos supports that C.C. acted knowingly/intentionally. | C.C.: Insufficient evidence of intent; testimony ambiguous and contradicted by other evidence. | Affirmed — S.B.’s testimony provided sufficient circumstantial evidence of intent/knowledge. |
| Competence of child witness (sua sponte inquiry) | State: S.B. was examined about truth/lie and answered appropriately; no further inquiry required absent objection. | C.C.: Court should have inquired further given S.B.’s sexualized behavior, developmental concerns, and mother’s comment about fantasy, impacting competency. | Affirmed — no fundamental error; competency questioning was adequate and no blatant due-process violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- A.M. v. State, 981 N.E.2d 91 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (juvenile sufficiency-of-evidence standard follows criminal sufficiency review)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (appellate review defers to trier of fact on credibility and evidence weight)
- Dabner v. State, 279 N.E.2d 797 (Ind. 1972) (affirming standard that conviction will be upheld if reasonable trier could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
- Amphonephong v. State, 32 N.E.3d 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (intent may be inferred from conduct and its natural consequences)
- Bowles v. State, 737 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. 2000) (same principle on inferring intent from conduct)
- Kien v. State, 866 N.E.2d 377 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (child witness competency factors: truth/lie distinction, compulsion to tell truth, understanding what is true)
- Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. 2010) (preservation rule for evidentiary objections and narrow fundamental-error exception)
- Casselman v. State, 582 N.E.2d 432 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (clarifying that children need not be perfect witnesses to be competent)
- Richard v. State, 820 N.E.2d 749 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (discussing components of child competency to testify)