Erasmo Leyva, Jr. v. State of Indiana
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 347
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Leyva appeals his conviction for child molesting as a class A felony and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.
- Victim A.L. was about 11 during Easter weekend 2010; she testified Leyva touched her private area with his fingers during the night when the family was in the living room.
- Trial charged Count I (class A) for deviate sexual conduct and Count II (class C) for fondling; jury found both guilty; Count II merged into Count I and Leyva was sentenced to 20 years.
- DNA testing in the victim’s underpants showed male DNA but not enough to identify the perpetrator; Leyva testified, denying the charges.
- The majority affirms the conviction, applying the sufficiency standard and recognizing the credibility determinations lie with the trier of fact; the dissent would reverse on incredible dubiosity and advocate for corroboration in such cases.
- The dissent argues A.L.’s testimony is incredibly dubious and insufficient on its own to sustain a class A felony conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support class A felony child molesting | State argues evidence is probative and supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Leyva argues A.L.’s testimony is incredibly dubious and uncorroborated | Sufficient evidence; conviction affirmed |
| Application of the incredible dubiosity rule | Rule is narrow; the testimony is not inherently incredible | Rule applies; A.L.’s testimony is inherently improbable | Rule applied narrowly; no reversal of the conviction |
| Corroboration requirement for child molesting when sole witness is the victim | Not required; DNA and other evidence need not corroborate | Corroborating evidence should be required for child molesting cases | No corroboration requirement established for this case; conviction affirmed in absence of corroboration; dissent would require corroboration in similar cases |
Key Cases Cited
- Love v. State, 761 N.E.2d 806 (Ind.2002) (incredible dubiosity rule rarity and standard)
- Jones v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1132 (Ind.2003) (weighing credibility is for the trier of fact; sufficiency standard on review)
- Gaddis v. State, 253 Ind. 73, 251 N.E.2d 658 (1969) (jury weighs evidence; appellate court reviews sufficiency as a matter of law)
- Willoughby v. State, 552 N.E.2d 462 (Ind.1990) (corpus delicti corroboration context for confessions)
- Hampton v. State, 921 N.E.2d 27 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (sufficiency of child-victim testimony in sufficiency-review contexts)