Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of 

establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: 

DAVID BECSEY GREGORY F. ZOELLER 

Zeigler Cohen & Koch Attorney General of Indiana 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

 NICOLE M. SCHUSTER 

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

DONALD CARTER, ) 

) 

Appellant-Defendant, ) 

) 

vs. ) No. 49A02-1110-CR-933 

) 

STATE OF INDIANA, ) 

) 

Appellee-Plaintiff. ) 

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT 

The Honorable Kimberly J. Brown, Judge 

The Honorable Patrick Murphy, Judge Pro Tem 

Cause No. 49G16-1012-FD-91499 

April 26, 2012 

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

FRIEDLANDER, Judge 
2

Donald Carter appeals his conviction of Strangulation1

 and Intimidation,2 both class D 

felonies. Carter challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as the sole issue on appeal. 

We affirm. 

The facts favorable to the convictions are that on December 3, 2010, Carter and his 

girlfriend, Clara Caudill, were at his mother’s house. Caudill was working on her laptop 

computer and Carter was on his cell phone arguing with Melissa Barlow, the mother of his 

child. After ending the conversation with Barlow, Carter slammed shut Caudill’s computer 

and began punching her in her side and on her leg with his closed fist, accusing her of not 

paying attention. When Caudill covered her face, Carter pulled her arms down and choked 

her for five to eight seconds such that she could not breathe. Later, Carter and Caudill drove 

to the house of their friends, Brandon and Mary Fleener. On the way there, Carter was still 

angry and strangled Caudill with her seat-belt strap for ten to fifteen seconds. He told 

Caudill that if she ever left him, he would kill her and her whole family and burn down their 

house. 

At the Fleeners’ house, they played cards and darts. Ultimately, Mary and Caudill 

went to get a movie to watch. After they returned, Carter was not happy with the movie the 

women chose and when he and Caudill were alone for a moment, he punched her in her 

lower back. Carter and Caudill spent the night with the Fleeners. The next morning, Caudill 

and Mary went to the home of a friend, where Mary noticed a bruise on Caudill’s neck. 

Later 

 

1 Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-2-9 (West, Westlaw through end of 2011 1st Regular Sess.). 

2

 Ind. Code Ann. § 35-45-2-1 (West, Westlaw through end of 2011 1st Regular Sess.). 
3

that day, Caudill reported what had occurred to Officer Clint Ellison of the Indianapolis 

Metropolitan Police Department. Carter was charged with strangulation, criminal 

confinement, intimidation, and battery. Following a bench trial, he was found guilty of 

strangulation, intimidation, and battery. Judgment of conviction was entered on the 

strangulation and intimidation counts. 

Carter challenges his convictions on grounds that the evidence was not sufficient to 

support the convictions. Specifically, he contends that the convictions must be reversed 

because they were based upon “inherently contradictory, equivocal, and dubious testimony” 

provided by Caudill. Appellant’s Brief at 3. Our standard of reviewing challenges to the 

sufficiency of the evidence supporting a criminal conviction is well settled. 

When reviewing a claim that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient 

to support a conviction, we consider only the probative evidence and 

reasonable inferences that support the trial court’s finding of guilt. We 

likewise consider conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the trial 

court’s finding. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every 

reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Instead, we will affirm the conviction 

unless no reasonable trier of fact could have found the elements of the crime 

beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011). When considering a challenge to the 

evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses. Turner v. 

State, 953 N.E.2d 1039 (Ind. 2011). Under the incredible dubiosity rule, which Carter asks 

us to invoke here, a defendant’s conviction may be reversed if a sole witness presents 

inherently improbable testimony, and there is a complete lack of circumstantial evidence. 

Love v. State, 761 N.E.2d 806 (Ind. 2002). The rule is applicable only where the court has 

confronted inherently improbable testimony or coerced, equivocal, wholly uncorroborated 
4

testimony of incredible dubiosity. Id. Application of this rule is rare and the standard to be 

applied is whether the testimony is so incredibly dubious or inherently improbable that no 

reasonable person could believe it. Id.

We find nothing inherently incredible about Caudill’s testimony. Her description of 

Carter’s attacks upon her were plausible in and of themselves, and were not rendered less so 

merely because Caudill did not immediately report Carter’s actions to the police, but instead 

stayed with Carter for the rest of that day and then all night at the Fleeners’. Moreover, 

Caudill’s claims were corroborated by Mary Fleener, who saw a bruise on Caudill’s neck the 

day after these incidents occurred, and by Officer Ellison, who observed on that same day 

that Caudill’s neck “was red, had a reddish tint to it, and [there] appeared to be some light 

bruising on it.” Transcript at 31. In summary, Caudill’s testimony was not inherently 

unbelievable and was easily sufficient to support the convictions. 

Judgment affirmed. 

MAY, J., and BARNES, J., concur.