Jalen Humphries v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 25, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-1115
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 25 2018, 10:05 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Kimberly A. Jackson Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Lyubov Gore Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jalen Humphries, September 25, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-1115 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Lisa F. Borges, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge The Honorable Anne Flannelly, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49G04-1605-F5-19410

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1115 | September 25, 2018 Page 1 of 5 [1] Jalen Humphries appeals his conviction for Level 5 felony child solicitation.

He contends that the victim’s testimony was incredibly dubious and, therefore,

the State presented insufficient evidence to support the conviction.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] Humphries, who was in his early twenties, moved into his father’s Indianapolis

home in April 2015. He lived there with his father, who was also L.T.’s

grandfather (Grandfather), and several other family members. During the

2015-2016 school year, Grandfather regularly picked up his granddaughter L.T.

from school and brought her back home until one of her parents could pick her

up after work. L.T. spent time with Humphries, her paternal uncle, at the

home and enjoyed playing games on his smartphone and watching movies.

[4] On one such afternoon on or near February 1, 2016, when L.T. was six years

old, L.T. was in the living room when Humphries asked her to go with him into

a back bedroom. L.T. sat on the bed as directed by Humphries, while he stood

in front of her. Humphries told L.T. that he was going to give her a cookie. He

then placed a pillow case partially over L.T.’s head. It “[k]ind of” covered her

eyes, but L.T. could still see. Transcript at 30. Humphries then told her to

“[o]pen but don’t bite.” Id. at 31. L.T. understood this to mean that he was

going to “do something.” Id. She opened her mouth as instructed, but she then

“saw something bad” and put her arm in front of her mouth. Id. According to

L.T., Humphries had his pants down and was holding “[h]is private” with both

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1115 | September 25, 2018 Page 2 of 5 hands. Id. After L.T. covered her mouth, she exclaimed, “That’s not a

cookie.” Id. at 33. She was upset and pulled the pillow case off her head. At

that point, Humphries’s pants were pulled up and he had a cookie in his hand.

He gave her the cookie, and L.T. threw it in the trash and ran out of the room.

She did not say anything that day to Grandfather or others present because she

was scared. A few days later, on February 4, 2016, L.T. pulled her mother

aside at another relative’s home and told her what happened with Humphries.

Her mother immediately notified L.T.’s father, who contacted the police.

[5] On May 20, 2016, the State charged Humphries with Level 5 felony child

solicitation (Count I) and Level 6 felony performing sexual conduct in the

presence of a child (Count II). Humphries waived his right to a jury trial and

was tried by the bench on March 9, 2018. L.T., who was eight years old at the

time of trial, testified as set out above. Humphries testified in his own defense

and denied the allegations. He did acknowledge, however, that he bought

cookies once at the Dollar Store, which he kept at home and shared with L.T.

[6] At the conclusion of the bench trial, the trial court found Humphries guilty as

charged but entered judgment of conviction only on Count I. When entering

judgment, the trial court expressly noted, “I found LT’s testimony to be very

credible and very clear”. Id. at 74. At the sentencing hearing on April 10, 2018,

the trial court noted again that L.T. “was a very credible witness”. Id. at 90.

The trial court sentenced Humphries to the advisory sentence of three years in

prison. Humphries now appeals.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1115 | September 25, 2018 Page 3 of 5 Discussion & Decision

[7] Humphries relies upon the incredible dubiosity rule in arguing that the evidence

was insufficient to support his conviction. Specifically, he argues that L.T.’s

testimony, which was the only testimony establishing the offense, was

inherently contradictory and unsupported by circumstantial evidence.

[8] Application of the incredible dubiosity rule is extremely limited. Under this

rule, we will impinge on the trier of fact’s responsibility to judge the credibility

of the witnesses only when confronted by “‘inherently improbable’ testimony or

coerced, equivocal, wholly uncorroborated testimony of ‘incredible dubiosity.’”

Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 755 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Tillman v. State, 642

N.E.2d 221, 223 (Ind. 1994)). “[W]hile incredible dubiosity provides a

standard that is ‘not impossible’ to meet, it is a ‘difficult standard to meet, [and]

one that requires great ambiguity and inconsistency in the evidence.’” Id. at

756 (quoting Edwards v. State, 753 N.E.2d 618, 622 (Ind. 2001)). “The

testimony must be so convoluted and/or contrary to human experience that no

reasonable person could believe it.” Edwards, 753 N.E.2d at 622.

[9] L.T.’s testimony on the witness stand was unequivocal and contained no

inherent contradictions. She clearly testified regarding Humphries’s actions on

the afternoon in question. On appeal, Humphries questions how this could

have happened in a “house full of relatives”, why he would have proceeded

with the alleged solicitation of L.T. with her eyes only partially covered, and

how he was able to pull his pants up so quickly and hold a cookie after she

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1115 | September 25, 2018 Page 4 of 5 covered her mouth and removed the pillow case. Appellant’s Brief at 10. None

of these queries indicates that L.T.’s testimony was inherently contradictory.

Further, although exceedingly disturbing, the facts as alleged by L.T. were not

convoluted, improbable, or contrary to human experience. This is not a case in

which the incredible dubiosity rule applies.

[10] Thus, it was for the trial court, as trier of fact, to resolve conflicts in the

evidence and to decide which witnesses to believe or disbelieve. See Murry v.

State, 761 N.E.2d 406, 409 (Ind. 2002). The trial court found L.T.’s testimony

to be “very credible and very clear”. Transcript at 74. This was the trial court’s

prerogative, and L.T.’s testimony was sufficient to support the conviction. See

Carter v. State, 31 N.E.3d 17, 30 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (“the uncorroborated

testimony of the victim, even if the victim is a minor, is sufficient to sustain a

conviction”), trans. denied.

[11] Judgment affirmed.

Brown, J. and Tavitas, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1115 | September 25, 2018 Page 5 of 5