Tywaun Carter v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 632
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Tywaun Carter was convicted at bench trial of two counts of Level 1 felony rape and sentenced to 32 years on each count, concurrent.
- The offenses were committed against A.M., a prostitute, in a house on North Rural Street; Carter used a gun to control her.
- DNA from semen matched Carter; he initially denied but later admitted to sex, claiming it was consensual.
- A.M. reported the assault, underwent a sexual assault examination, and testified at trial with corroborating circumstantial evidence (injuries, demeanor, DNA).
- The court merged several counts and affirmed convictions; appellate issues were sufficiency of evidence and sentencing propriety.
- Carter argues the evidence is incredible dubiosity and that his sentence is inappropriate under Rule 7(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the evidence sufficient to sustain the rape convictions? | State contends testimony plus DNA and corroborating evidence prove guilt. | Carter argues A.M.’s testimony is incredible dubiosity and uncorroborated. | Evidence sufficient; no basis to apply incredible dubiosity. |
| Is Carter's sentence inappropriate in light of the offenses and his character? | State maintains the 32-year term is appropriate given two Level 1 rapes and lack of remorse. | Carter claims youth, troubled childhood, and prostitution of victim warrant reduced punishment. | Sentence not inappropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749 (Ind. 2015) (incredible dubiosity defined; three-part test)
- Edwards v. State, 753 N.E.2d 618 (Ind. 2001) (credibility and circumstantial evidence considerations)
- Potter v. State, 684 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. 1997) (rape conviction may rest on uncorroborated testimony)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (factors for determining appropriateness of sentence)
- Ritchie v. State, 875 N.E.2d 706 (Ind. 2007) (difficult childhood warrants little mitigating weight)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (principles for appellate review of sentencing)