Dennis Feyka v. State of Indiana, 2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 383

Feyka is defendant in Marion Superior Court, appealing a conviction for Class A felony child molesting.
Schedule recounts a spring break sleepover at Feyka’s house hosting T.B., age nine, and other girls older than T.B.
T.B. testified Feyka placed his mouth on her vagina on three occasions while others slept in a locked room nearby.
The State charged three counts; the jury convicted on all, with Counts 2 and 3 merged into Count 1 for judgment.
A central issue on appeal was prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments and the sufficiency of T.B.’s uncorroborated testimony.
The court affirmed, holding no fundamental error and sufficient evidence supported the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument	Feyka argues the prosecutor’s references to his silence were improper.	Feyka contends the remarks violated due process and prejudiced the jury.	Not fundamental error; remarks not coercive or pervasive enough.
Sufficiency of evidence and incredible dubiosity	State asserts uncorroborated victim testimony suffices to prove molestation.	Feyka claims TB’s testimony was incredibly dubious and contradicted by others.	Evidence supported conviction; incredible dubiosity not established; jury credibility found TB credible.

Owens v. State, 937 N.E.2d 880 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (improper but not fundamental error when comment addresses evidence overall)
Davis v. State, 685 N.E.2d 1095 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (comments on an uncontradicted admission can invite inference from defendant’s silence)
Morrison v. State, 462 N.E.2d 78 (Ind. 1984) (un corroborated victim testimony can sustain conviction)
Surber v. State, 884 N.E.2d 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (inconsistencies in child witness testimony do not render it incredible)
Fajardo v. State, 859 N.E.2d 1201 (Ind. 2007) (standard for incredible dubiosity: testimony must be incredibly dubious)