Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-JV-2217 | October 25, 2016 Page 1 of 9

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Matthew D. Anglemeyer

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

J. T. Whitehead

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

D. B.,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Petitioner.

October 25, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1512-JV-2217

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Marilyn Moores, 

Judge

The Honorable Gary Chavers, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49D09-1508-JD-1490

Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-JV-2217 | October 25, 2016 Page 2 of 9

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

[1] Appellant-Defendant, D.B., appeals his delinquency adjudication for two 

Counts of rape, Level 3 felonies if committed by an adult, Ind. Code § 35-42-4-

1. 

[2] We affirm.

ISSUE

[3] D.B. raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the trial court 

abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[4] In the summer of 2015, D.B. and S.M. were sophomores at Ben Davis High 

School in Indianapolis, Indiana. Fifteen-year-old D.B. was a wide receiver for 

the school’s football team. Sixteen-year-old S.M. was the school’s football team 

manager and responsible for the players’ equipment and uniforms. S.M. 

became acquainted with D.B. in her freshman year and they regularly 

interacted during football practice. At the end of football practice on August 

11, 2015, D.B. took S.M.’s phone and messaged “Heyy” to his own phone 

through an instant messaging software application known as “Kik.” (State’s 

Exh. 3, p.1). Later that evening, the two exchanged flirtatious messages and 

had three Facetime (i.e., video chat) conversations. The following day, on 

August 12, 2015, after football practice, D.B., S.M., and other friends,

remained in the trainer’s room to talk and play. After everyone had left, S.M. 

and D.B. walked together, taking S.M.’s usual route home. D.B. stopped 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-JV-2217 | October 25, 2016 Page 3 of 9

behind the bleachers near the parking lot, and asked S.M. to come close. S.M., 

who was talking with another person on her cell phone, stated no and began 

laughing. At that point, D.B. grabbed S.M. by the belt and he pulled her 

towards him. S.M. put her phone away, and D.B. tried to undo her belt but 

S.M. grabbed D.B.’s hand, and she stated no. Despite S.M.’s refusal, D.B. 

reached down S.M.’s pants and penetrated S.M.’s vagina with his finger. S.M. 

was shocked. According to S.M., they were no longer standing by the

bleachers, they were standing between two cars in the parking lot. D.B. pulled 

down S.M.’s pants, turned her around, and forced her to bend over against one 

of the vehicles. D.B. proceeded to penetrate S.M.’s vagina with his penis; 

however, because S.M. tensed up, it made it difficult for D.B. to penetrate her 

vagina. In an attempt to penetrate her vagina, D.B. spread S.M.’s vagina with 

his two fingers, and inserted his penis. To some extent, D.B. succeeded in 

penetrating S.M.’s vagina, by moving past her vaginal lips. According to S.M., 

D.B. tried to penetrate her vagina “too many” times. (Tr. p. 59). It hurt S.M. 

After several attempts, D.B. gave up trying to penetrate S.M.’s vagina, pulled 

up his pants and informed S.M. that his mother had arrived to pick him up. 

S.M. also pulled up her pants, hugged D.B. goodbye, and walked home. 

[5] Nearby, and from inside the high school, by Door 12, custodian Michael Short 

(Custodian Short) was working, and when he looked outside into the parking 

lot, he saw what he would describe as a sex act between a male and a female, 

and after the act, he saw them pull up their pants, hug, and leave. Custodian 

Short was able to identify the male in the parking lot as D.B. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-JV-2217 | October 25, 2016 Page 4 of 9

[6] S.M. cried on her way home. When she arrived, S.M. went straight to her 

bedroom. S.M. was in pain, she could not sit down, and when she put on her 

pajamas, she noticed blood in her underwear. S.M. contacted her friend E.H., 

who advised her how to clean up the bloody underwear. That same evening, 

S.M. texted D.B. via Kik where she stated that she did not want the sex act to 

happen, reminded him that she had told him “no,” and that she could not even 

sit down because of the pain. (Tr. p. 71). D.B. wrote back “L-O-L,” which 

means “lots of laughs.” (Tr. p. 72). D.B. told S.M. to lie to her family that she 

got injured. (Tr. p. 72). S.M. expressed to D.B. that she felt violated, and D.B. 

wrote back, “Awh.” (Tr. p. 72). S.M. additionally texted D.B. that she told 

him to stop, and D.B. responded by stating, “So?” (Tr. p. 73). The following 

day, S.M. reported the incident to a school official, who, in turn, contacted the 

police. When the police arrived, they interviewed S.M., and S.M. was later 

taken to the hospital where she was examined by nurse Cantana Phillips (Nurse 

Phillips). Upon examining S.M., Nurse Phillips found a lot of redness and 

abrasions to the exterior of S.M.’s vagina, as well as abrasions on each side of 

her vaginal walls. S.M. “verbalized that she was in pain.” (Tr. p. 191). 

[7] Shortly after S.M. reported the incident to a school official, the dean of 

students, Dean Stanton (Dean Stanton), summoned D.B. and informed him of

the rape allegations against him by S.M. D.B. was requested to provide a 

written statement of his version of events. On August 19, 2015, D.B. offered a 

written response where he reported that it was S.M. who initiated sexual 

touching, i.e., D.B. indicated that S.M. hit him in the private area, and he, in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-JV-2217 | October 25, 2016 Page 5 of 9

turn, hit S.M. in the private area. D.B. added that at S.M.’s request, he put his 

hand inside S.M.’s pants. 

[8] On August 19, 2015, the State filed a petition, alleging D.B. was a delinquent

child because he committed two offenses of rape, which would be Level 3 

felonies if committed by an adult. On September 17, 2015, the juvenile court 

conducted a fact-finding hearing. S.M., S.M.’s friend—E.H., Custodian Short, 

Nurse Phillips, Dean Stanton, and D.B., testified. On September 18, 2015, the 

juvenile court found both allegations to be true. On November 25, 2015, the 

juvenile court placed D.B. on probation with a suspended commitment to the 

Department of Correction. D.B. was placed in the Resolute Treatment Facility 

to participate in a sex offense treatment program, and the juvenile court allowed 

for D.B.’s transfer into the Polaris Group Home if the Resolute Treatment 

Facility agreed with the transfer. 

[9] D.B. now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. 

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

[10] D.B. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in admitting 

impeachment evidence. Specifically, during cross-examination, the State 

introduced evidence of an allegation against D.B., in which a girl had alleged 

that D.B. had touched her private area during the previous school year. 

[11] The juvenile court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of 

evidence. See C.C. v. State, 826 N.E.2d 106, 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-JV-2217 | October 25, 2016 Page 6 of 9

denied. We will reverse only upon an abuse of that discretion. Id. An abuse of 

discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts 

and circumstances before the court. See Berry v. State, 967 N.E.2d 87, 90 (Ind.

Ct. App. 2012).

[12] On direct examination, by his counsel, D.B. was asked if he had experienced 

any other disciplinary problems at school, and he stated, “[N]o, sir.” (Tr. p. 

218). Based on that testimony, on cross-examination, the State sought to 

impeach D.B. by asking him about a sexual harassment claim in which a girl at 

D.B.’s school had alleged that D.B. had touched her private area with his leg. 

The juvenile court overruled D.B.’s objection to the State’s questioning about 

his prior disciplinary problems. 

[13] D.B. contends that although he was suspended for sexually harassing a girl in 

2014, he refuted that assertion at his hearing, and the State failed to present 

evidence that the allegation was substantiated. Accordingly, D.B. posits that 

the sexual harassment allegation was irrelevant and had no tendency to make 

S.M.’s allegations of rape more probable. 

[14] We initially note that Indiana Evidence Rule 401 provides a liberal standard for 

relevancy, and appellate courts review a trial court’s ruling on relevance for an 

abuse of discretion. Konopasek v. State, 946 N.E.2d 23, 27 (Ind. 2011). Relevant 

evidence is “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact 

that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less

probable than it would be without the evidence.” Id. (quoting Ind. Evidence 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-JV-2217 | October 25, 2016 Page 7 of 9

Rule 401). Further, Ind. Evidence Rule 607 provides that the credibility of a 

witness may be attacked by any party. Indiana Evidence Rule 616 explicitly 

makes “evidence of bias, prejudice, or interest of the witness for or against any 

party” relevant and admissible for impeachment purposes, as this evidence can 

impact the weight of the witness’s testimony. Id at 27-28. Our supreme court 

has stated, however, that Evidence Rule 616 “should be read in conjunction 

with Rule 403’s required balancing of probative value against the danger of 

unfair prejudice.” Ingram v. State, 715 N.E.2d 405, 407 (Ind. 1999). Evidence 

Rule 403 reads, “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative 

value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of 

the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or 

needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”

[15] Here, D.B. testified that he had not experienced any disciplinary issues at his 

school, other than the instant case. D.B.’s testimony left the juvenile court with 

the impression that he was an honest person. Given that D.B. had asserted that 

it was S.M. who initiated the sexual acts during direct-examination, a focal 

point in this case was his credibility as a witness. Therefore, during crossexamination, the State inquired into D.B.’s suspension in 2014 with regards to a

sexual harassment allegation, so as to show that D.B. was lying when he stated 

that he never encountered disciplinary problems at his school. Evidence that he 

was not truthful was therefore relevant, and the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in admitting this evidence. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-JV-2217 | October 25, 2016 Page 8 of 9

[16] We further find that the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by 

unfair prejudice. See Evid. R. 403. S.M. provided unequivocal testimony 

regarding her sexual encounter with D.B. in August of 2015. S.M. stated that 

she and D.B. were walking home, D.B. stopped by the bleacher and pulled her

towards him. D.B. tried to undo her belt but S.M. grabbed D.B.’s hand, and 

she stated no. Despite S.M.’s refusal, D.B. reached into S.M.’s pants and 

penetrated S.M.’s vagina with his finger. In addition, D.B. pulled down S.M.’s 

pants, turned her around, and forced her to bend over against one of the 

vehicles. D.B. tried to penetrate S.M.’s vagina with his penis; however, because 

S.M. tensed up, it made it difficult for D.B. to penetrate her vagina. At that 

point, D.B. spread S.M.’s vagina with his two fingers, and inserted his penis. 

D.B. succeeded in slightly penetrating S.M.’s vagina, by moving past her 

vaginal lips. That evening, S.M. texted D.B. that she did not want it to happen, 

reminded him that she had told him “no,” and told him that she could not even 

sit down because of the pain. Other than S.M.’s testimony, the State 

introduced corroborating evidence through Nurse Phillips, who conducted the 

sexual assault examination indicating redness and abrasions on S.M.’s vaginal 

walls which were consistent with non-consensual sex. 

[17] Upon review, we are satisfied that, in light of S.M.’s unequivocal testimony 

regarding her sexual encounter with D.B., and other corroborating evidence, we 

find that there is no substantial likelihood that the evidence of D.B.’s previous 

suspension in relation to a sexual harassment allegation contributed to his
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-JV-2217 | October 25, 2016 Page 9 of 9

conviction. Accordingly, we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its 

discretion in admitting the impeachment evidence. 

CONCLUSION

[18] Based on the foregoing, we find that the juvenile court properly admitted the 

impeachment evidence.

[19] Affirmed. 

[20] Bailey, J. and Barnes, J. concur