Kevin Chadwick v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1606-CR-1195
| Ind. Ct. App. | Mar 9, 2017Background
- Victim R.P., born in 2000, was molested by neighbor and family friend Kevin Chadwick beginning when R.P. was about seven and continuing until about age ten or eleven.
- Alleged acts included hand-to-penis touching through/inside pants, oral contact, and repeated attempts while Chadwick babysat R.P.
- R.P. did not disclose the abuse for years, later told a friend in 2015, who relayed it to her mother; family identified Chadwick from a photo and contacted police.
- The State charged Chadwick with three counts: Count I (Class A felony — deviate sexual conduct with a child under 14), Count II (Class A felony — attempt to commit deviate sexual conduct), and Count III (Class C felony — fondling/touching to arouse).
- A jury convicted Chadwick on all counts at a March 2016 trial; court sentenced him to concurrent 35-year terms on Counts I and II and 5 years on Count III.
- On appeal Chadwick challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and argued the victim’s testimony was ‘incredibly dubious.’
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove Class A deviate sexual conduct (Count I) | State: R.P.’s testimony described oral contact and manual contact constituting deviate sexual conduct with a child under 14 by an adult | Chadwick: Evidence insufficient; witness testimony unreliable | Affirmed — jury could reasonably find deviate sexual conduct beyond a reasonable doubt based on R.P.’s account |
| Sufficiency for attempted deviate sexual conduct (Count II) | State: acts of inserting hand into pants and touching constituted a substantial step toward deviate sexual conduct | Chadwick: conduct did not rise to a substantial step / insufficient | Affirmed — touching inside pants was a substantial step toward deviate sexual conduct |
| Sufficiency for fondling/touching with sexual intent (Count III) | State: repeated skin-to-skin touching, pulling down pants, and context permits inference of intent to arouse | Chadwick: mere touching or attention-seeking by complainant, lack of corroboration | Affirmed — intent may be inferred from conduct; testimony sufficient |
| Application of the incredible-dubiosity rule to exclude victim testimony | State: victim’s consistent trial testimony sufficient; jury credibility determination controls | Chadwick: victim’s delays, failure to name abuser earlier, and lack of DCS interview render testimony inherently improbable | Rejected — testimony not so improbable or equivocal to invoke the rule; credibility reserved to jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrison v. State, 462 N.E.2d 78 (Ind. 1984) (uncorroborated testimony of a minor victim can support child-molesting conviction)
- Bass v. State, 947 N.E.2d 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (intent to arouse may be proved circumstantially and inferred from conduct)
- Murray v. State, 761 N.E.2d 406 (Ind. 2002) (incredible-dubiosity rule described; limited application)
- Govan v. State, 913 N.E.2d 237 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (quoting the standard for incredible-dubiosity review)
- Fajardo v. State, 859 N.E.2d 1201 (Ind. 2007) (framing the standard for when testimony is inherently improbable)
- Manuel v. State, 971 N.E.2d 1262 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (rule does not apply to conflicts between multiple statements)
- Watkins v. State, 571 N.E.2d 1262 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (examples of inherently improbable testimony supporting refusal to apply incredible-dubiosity)