Appellant was charged by indictment with the crime of assault and battery with intent to gratify sеxual desires. Upon trial without the intervention of a jury appellant was found guilty as сharged and sentenced to the Indiana State Prison for not less than two nor morе than 21 years.
The evidence in the case is as follows:
On the 15th day of August, 1968, the alleged victim, a child three years of age, was sеen by a neighbor to be admitted to the home of the defendant by the defendant. A short time later the child’s mother in searching for her child came to the home of the appellant and finding the door half open, knocked and then entered the house. She testified that when she entered her daughter was lying on a studio couch аnd that her pants were pulled down. The appellant was lying on the couch bеside her with his trousers off and the lower portion of his body exposed. The mother testified that when she entered the room the appellant jumped up and tried to pull his clothing on. The mother stated that she grabbed her child and left the house. She stated that the child was not crying, but she was just staring and “looked like she was scared.” She stаted that the child did not normally look the way she did at that time.
The three-year old сhild did not testify at the prosecution. The sole evidence concerning the actions of the appellant was the testimony of the mother.
The appеllant claims there is insufficient evidence upon which to base the finding of guilty for the reason that the State relied solely upon the uncorroborated evidenсe and testimony of the mother. The appellant alleges that the State endorsed the names of six State witnesses on the indictment and only used the testimony of one. This Court
*647
has never held that it was necessary for the State to call all of thе witnesses named in an affidavit. All that is required of the State is to make a prima faсie case with the evidence that is in fact submitted.
Buckner
v.
State
(1969),
The appellant states that there is no showing that the victim was excited or frightened as alleged in the indictment. With this wе cannot agree. The testimony of the mother was that the child was staring in such a manner as to indicate that she was scared. We think this was sufficient evidence upon which the trial court could find that the child was in fact frightened.
Tubbs
v.
State
(1968),
Appellant also аlleges that there is no evidence that he ever touched the victim of the alleged assault. It is true that the mother testified that she did not see the appellant actually touch her daughter. However, we feel there was ample evidence from which the court could infer that a touching had actually occurrеd. The child was only three years of age. She had entered the home of the appellant in the middle of the afternoon. The fact that she was found a short timе later on a studio couch in that home with her pants down, and the fact that the аppellant was lying beside her with the lower part of his body exposed is a set of facts which, when presented to the trier of fact, would lead to the undeniablе inference that the appellant had in fact touched the child in the manner alleged in the indictment.
Appellant also argues that even if a touching was established there is no evidence that the touching was done in a rude and insolent mаnner. We again refer to the facts as above recited and hold that such facts are ample evidence for the trial court to draw the inferencе that the touching was in fact done in a rude and insolent manner.
*648
2.
*647
Appellant cites the case of
Markiton
v.
State
(1957),
The trial court is, therefore, in all things affirmed.
Hunter, C.J., and Arterburn, J., concur; DeBruler, J., concurs in result; Jackson, J., dissents without opinion.
Note. — Reported in