MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jan 15 2020, 9:22 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Justin R. Wall Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Huntington, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Marjorie Lawyer-Smith Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Steven R. Collins, January 15, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-1852 v. Appeal from the Wabash Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Robert R. Appellee-Plaintiff McCallen, III, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 85C01-1803-F5-244
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1852 | January 15, 2020 Page 1 of 8 [1] Steven Collins appeals from his conviction and sentence for Level 5 felony
sexual misconduct with a minor. He contends both that the evidence was
insufficient to support his conviction and that his sentence is inappropriate.
[2] We affirm.
Facts 1 & Procedural History
[3] A.J. (Child) and Collins’s daughter S.C. became best friends in 2016 when they
were in a seventh-grade play. Thereafter, they regularly spent the night at each
other’s homes on the weekends. Child turned fourteen years old in November
2017, before the events in question.
[4] On the evening of Saturday, November 25, 2017, Child came to Collins’s home
to spend the night with S.C. Child’s mother dropped her off around 11:00 p.m.,
after Child attended a family celebration in a nearby town. S.C. and Collins
were in the living room when she arrived, and Child sat down to watch
television with them after taking her belongings to S.C.’s bedroom. The three
“hung out and relaxed” for a couple hours. Transcript Vol. 2 at 156.
[5] Around 1:30 a.m., S.C. got up and said she was going to make the bed in her
room and charge her cell phone. Once S.C. left, Collins, who was thirty-seven
years old, scooted closer to Child on the couch and asked her if she “wanted to
1 The Statement of Facts provided in Collins’s appellate brief is wholly inadequate, providing little to none of the facts relevant to the issues presented. Counsel is directed to review Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(6).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1852 | January 15, 2020 Page 2 of 8 do anything.” Id. at 158. Child was confused. He then took her right hand and
placed it “on his crotch over his basketball shorts.” Id. at 159. Child could feel
that S.C.’s penis was erect. Child then immediately got up and went into S.C.’s
room, where she found S.C. on her phone lying in bed. Child lay down next to
her, too scared to say anything to S.C. Child sent several text messages to her
boyfriend, but he did not respond because he was likely asleep. She also
unsuccessfully sent a message to a friend who lived across from S.C.
[6] After several minutes of trying to reach others, Child told S.C. what had
happened. S.C. responded that Collins “probably didn’t mean it” and that
“probably wasn’t his intention.” Id. at 162. Child remained numb and in shock
at that point and did not want to remain in the home, so she sent a text message
to D.C., a boy she knew would be in the neighborhood that night. She asked
D.C. to meet her “because something bad happened, and [her boyfriend] wasn’t
responding, and [she] was freaking out.” Id. at 164. D.C. agreed to meet her at
a nearby park.
[7] In the meantime, Collins sent a text message to Child via Instagram. A
screenshot of the text exchange indicates the following after Collins initiated
contact with Child around 2:00 a.m.:
Child: What?
Collins: I have something to say
Collins: To your face
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1852 | January 15, 2020 Page 3 of 8 Child: I’m not getting up
Collins: Fine
Child: I’m not going out there
Collins: Ok
Exhibit Index at 5. 2
[8] Once D.C. indicated that he was leaving to meet her, Child quickly changed in
the bedroom into long pajama pants and a sweatshirt because it was cold
outside. She then she ran through the house and out the front door without
stopping for her shoes. Collins was still in the living room on the couch, where
he usually slept. Child ran down the street, and Collins chased after her,
wearing only shorts and a t-shirt. When he caught up to Child, Collins grabbed
onto her sweatshirt and started apologizing. Child convinced him that she was
not going to run, so he let go of her and continued to walk alongside her,
pleading: “Just come back to the house. I’m sorry I broke that trust. I didn’t
mean to. Please just come back to the house.” Transcript Vol. 2 at 171.
[9] Once Child saw D.C., she sprinted toward him and wrapped her arms around
him. Child, seemingly terrified, stood behind D.C. as Collins approached and
identified himself. D.C. asked what had happened, and Child whispered to him
to just wait. Collins responded, “I don’t know what happened. Come on.
Let’s just go back to the house.” Id. at 174. Collins then walked back to his
2 Later that morning, Collins blocked Child on Instagram, resulting in the messages being deleted. But Child had already taken a screen shot of the messages within minutes of them being sent.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1852 | January 15, 2020 Page 4 of 8 house. Child stayed with D.C. and told him what had happened. D.C. gave
Child his shoes, as she was barefoot, and he took her with him to his friend’s
house. Child’s mother picked her up later that morning, and they went to the
local sheriff’s office the next day to make a report.
[10] On March 6, 2018, the State charged Collins with Level 5 felony sexual
misconduct with a minor. Collins was convicted as charged following a two-
day jury trial. On July 15, 2019, the trial court sentenced him to a term of three
years with six months suspended to probation. Collins now appeals,
challenging both his conviction and sentence. Additional information will be
provided below as needed.
Discussion & Decision
1. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[11] Recognizing that Child’s testimony, if believed, is sufficient to support his
conviction, Collins argues that the incredible dubiosity rule applies here.
The incredible dubiosity rule allows the court to impinge upon the [trier of fact’s] assessment of witness credibility when the testimony at trial is so contradictory that the verdict reached would be inherently improbable. For the incredible dubiosity rule to apply, the evidence presented must be so unbelievable, incredible, or improbable that no reasonable person could ever reach a guilty verdict based upon that evidence alone.
Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 751 (Ind. 2015). The witness’s testimony must be
wholly uncorroborated. That is, we will only impinge on the jury’s duty to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1852 | January 15, 2020 Page 5 of 8 judge witness credibility “where a sole witness presents inherently contradictory
testimony which is equivocal or the result of coercion and there is a complete lack
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jan 15 2020, 9:22 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Justin R. Wall Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Huntington, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Marjorie Lawyer-Smith Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Steven R. Collins, January 15, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-1852 v. Appeal from the Wabash Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Robert R. Appellee-Plaintiff McCallen, III, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 85C01-1803-F5-244
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1852 | January 15, 2020 Page 1 of 8 [1] Steven Collins appeals from his conviction and sentence for Level 5 felony
sexual misconduct with a minor. He contends both that the evidence was
insufficient to support his conviction and that his sentence is inappropriate.
[2] We affirm.
Facts 1 & Procedural History
[3] A.J. (Child) and Collins’s daughter S.C. became best friends in 2016 when they
were in a seventh-grade play. Thereafter, they regularly spent the night at each
other’s homes on the weekends. Child turned fourteen years old in November
2017, before the events in question.
[4] On the evening of Saturday, November 25, 2017, Child came to Collins’s home
to spend the night with S.C. Child’s mother dropped her off around 11:00 p.m.,
after Child attended a family celebration in a nearby town. S.C. and Collins
were in the living room when she arrived, and Child sat down to watch
television with them after taking her belongings to S.C.’s bedroom. The three
“hung out and relaxed” for a couple hours. Transcript Vol. 2 at 156.
[5] Around 1:30 a.m., S.C. got up and said she was going to make the bed in her
room and charge her cell phone. Once S.C. left, Collins, who was thirty-seven
years old, scooted closer to Child on the couch and asked her if she “wanted to
1 The Statement of Facts provided in Collins’s appellate brief is wholly inadequate, providing little to none of the facts relevant to the issues presented. Counsel is directed to review Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(6).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1852 | January 15, 2020 Page 2 of 8 do anything.” Id. at 158. Child was confused. He then took her right hand and
placed it “on his crotch over his basketball shorts.” Id. at 159. Child could feel
that S.C.’s penis was erect. Child then immediately got up and went into S.C.’s
room, where she found S.C. on her phone lying in bed. Child lay down next to
her, too scared to say anything to S.C. Child sent several text messages to her
boyfriend, but he did not respond because he was likely asleep. She also
unsuccessfully sent a message to a friend who lived across from S.C.
[6] After several minutes of trying to reach others, Child told S.C. what had
happened. S.C. responded that Collins “probably didn’t mean it” and that
“probably wasn’t his intention.” Id. at 162. Child remained numb and in shock
at that point and did not want to remain in the home, so she sent a text message
to D.C., a boy she knew would be in the neighborhood that night. She asked
D.C. to meet her “because something bad happened, and [her boyfriend] wasn’t
responding, and [she] was freaking out.” Id. at 164. D.C. agreed to meet her at
a nearby park.
[7] In the meantime, Collins sent a text message to Child via Instagram. A
screenshot of the text exchange indicates the following after Collins initiated
contact with Child around 2:00 a.m.:
Child: What?
Collins: I have something to say
Collins: To your face
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1852 | January 15, 2020 Page 3 of 8 Child: I’m not getting up
Collins: Fine
Child: I’m not going out there
Collins: Ok
Exhibit Index at 5. 2
[8] Once D.C. indicated that he was leaving to meet her, Child quickly changed in
the bedroom into long pajama pants and a sweatshirt because it was cold
outside. She then she ran through the house and out the front door without
stopping for her shoes. Collins was still in the living room on the couch, where
he usually slept. Child ran down the street, and Collins chased after her,
wearing only shorts and a t-shirt. When he caught up to Child, Collins grabbed
onto her sweatshirt and started apologizing. Child convinced him that she was
not going to run, so he let go of her and continued to walk alongside her,
pleading: “Just come back to the house. I’m sorry I broke that trust. I didn’t
mean to. Please just come back to the house.” Transcript Vol. 2 at 171.
[9] Once Child saw D.C., she sprinted toward him and wrapped her arms around
him. Child, seemingly terrified, stood behind D.C. as Collins approached and
identified himself. D.C. asked what had happened, and Child whispered to him
to just wait. Collins responded, “I don’t know what happened. Come on.
Let’s just go back to the house.” Id. at 174. Collins then walked back to his
2 Later that morning, Collins blocked Child on Instagram, resulting in the messages being deleted. But Child had already taken a screen shot of the messages within minutes of them being sent.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1852 | January 15, 2020 Page 4 of 8 house. Child stayed with D.C. and told him what had happened. D.C. gave
Child his shoes, as she was barefoot, and he took her with him to his friend’s
house. Child’s mother picked her up later that morning, and they went to the
local sheriff’s office the next day to make a report.
[10] On March 6, 2018, the State charged Collins with Level 5 felony sexual
misconduct with a minor. Collins was convicted as charged following a two-
day jury trial. On July 15, 2019, the trial court sentenced him to a term of three
years with six months suspended to probation. Collins now appeals,
challenging both his conviction and sentence. Additional information will be
provided below as needed.
Discussion & Decision
1. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[11] Recognizing that Child’s testimony, if believed, is sufficient to support his
conviction, Collins argues that the incredible dubiosity rule applies here.
The incredible dubiosity rule allows the court to impinge upon the [trier of fact’s] assessment of witness credibility when the testimony at trial is so contradictory that the verdict reached would be inherently improbable. For the incredible dubiosity rule to apply, the evidence presented must be so unbelievable, incredible, or improbable that no reasonable person could ever reach a guilty verdict based upon that evidence alone.
Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 751 (Ind. 2015). The witness’s testimony must be
wholly uncorroborated. That is, we will only impinge on the jury’s duty to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1852 | January 15, 2020 Page 5 of 8 judge witness credibility “where a sole witness presents inherently contradictory
testimony which is equivocal or the result of coercion and there is a complete lack
of circumstantial evidence of the appellant’s guilt.” Id. at 755 (emphases in
original) (quoting Tillman v. State, 642 N.E.2d 221, 223 (Ind. 1994)).
[12] Here, Child’s testimony was unequivocal that Collins placed her hand on his
clothed erect penis while the two were alone in the living room. In addition to
Child’s unwavering testimony, S.C. and D.C. testified that Child made
consistent allegations to each of them shortly after the incident. Moreover, the
text exchange between Collins and Child, initiated by Collins within thirty
minutes of the alleged misconduct, constitutes some evidence of his guilt, as
does his action of chasing after her when she ran out the front door. As Collins
followed her, pleading his case, Child sprinted barefoot in the darkness towards
D.C., seeking protection from Collins. D.C. testified that Child “seemed
terrified” as she ran in “a full out sprint” toward him. Transcript Vol. 2 at 214.
In sum, Collins’s reliance on the incredible dubiosity rule is wholly misplaced,
and the State presented ample evidence to support his conviction.
2. Sentence
[13] Collins also challenges the sentence imposed by the trial court as inappropriate.
We may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the
trial court’s decision, we find the sentence inappropriate in light of the nature of
the offense and the character of the offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B).
Indiana’s flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1852 | January 15, 2020 Page 6 of 8 sentence to the circumstances presented and the trial court’s judgment “should
receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind.
2008). The principal role of appellate review is to attempt to “leaven the
outliers.” Id. at 1225. Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate at the
end of the day turns on “our sense of culpability of the defendant, the severity
of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to
light in a given case.” Id. at 1224. Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] unless
overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the
offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the
defendant’s character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples
of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). The
burden is on the defendant to persuade us his sentence is inappropriate.
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).
[14] For a Level 5 felony, Collins faced a sentencing range of one to six years, with
the advisory sentence being three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b). The trial
court imposed the advisory sentence of three years and suspended six months of
the sentence.
[15] We cannot agree with Collins that his partially-suspended advisory sentence is
inappropriate. The nature of the offense, as reflected in the sentence imposed,
was not particularly egregious for a Level 5 felony sexual misconduct offense.
Collins placed Child’s hand on his clothed, though erect, penis for a matter of
seconds. He chose to do this, however, to his daughter’s best friend while his
three children were in the same house, and he then chased after Child when she
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1852 | January 15, 2020 Page 7 of 8 frantically ran from the house to the safe arms of D.C. The effects of the
offense have been severe for Child, as she attempted suicide and had to
withdraw from school. Further, with regard to his character, Collins has a
criminal history consisting of five Class A misdemeanor convictions (one for
check deception and four for driving while suspended) and has had probation
revoked on one occasion.
[16] The trial court found Collins’s criminal history only slightly aggravating and
weighed it against the hardship incarceration would pose on his three
dependent children. 3 The trial court also noted the effect the offense had on
Child. Ultimately, the trial court imposed the three-year advisory sentence and
suspended six months. Although Collins does not have a substance abuse
problem, the trial court also ordered Recovery While Incarcerated for him so
that Collins could obtain “a potential time-cut” upon completion. Transcript
Vol. 3 at 140. The sentence crafted by the trial court was not inappropriate in
light of the nature of the offense and Collins’s character.
[17] Judgment affirmed.
Robb, J. and Bradford, C.J., concur.
3 At the time of the offense, Collins was an unemployed widow living with his three minor children (then ages fourteen, twelve, and one and one-half years old) and his sister-in-law. His sister-in-law works outside the home and will continue to live with and provide for the two oldest children while Collins is incarcerated. The youngest child has been taken into custody by her mother, who is not the mother of the older children.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1852 | January 15, 2020 Page 8 of 8