Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-354 | October 28, 2020 Page 1 of 20

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

Elizabeth A. Deckard

Columbia City, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Tina L. Mann

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Matthew S. Reed,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

October 28, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-CR-354

Appeal from the Whitley Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Matthew J. 

Rentschler, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

92C01-1812-F1-160

Tavitas, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-354 | October 28, 2020 Page 2 of 20

Case Summary

[1] Matthew Reed appeals his convictions for ten counts of child molesting, Level 1 

felonies. We affirm.

Issues

[2] Reed raises three issues, which we consolidate and restate as:

I. Whether the trial court properly admitted certain 

evidence.

II. Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain Reed’s 

convictions for Counts VI through X.

Facts

[3] B.R. was born in early August 2009. B.R. was removed from her mother’s care 

and, in approximately 2015, B.R. started living in South Whitley with her 

father, Reed; her step-mother, Nicole; and Reed’s elderly grandmother. 

[4] In the fall of 2016, Jessica Herb, the school counselor at B.R.’s elementary 

school, began working with B.R. regarding B.R.’s behavioral issues.1

 In August 

2018, nine-year-old B.R. was in third grade. On August 30, 2018, Herb and 

B.R. ate lunch in Herb’s office, and B.R. was “doodling and doing math” on 

Herb’s whiteboard. Tr. Vol. II p. 246. B.R. said, “Mrs. Herb, can I tell you 

1 The behavioral issues included B.R. stealing food, losing control of her emotions, animalistic behaviors, 

and inappropriate physical boundary issues.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-354 | October 28, 2020 Page 3 of 20

something, but you might think that it’s a little gross.” Id. Herb responded, 

“sure, you know, okay.” Id. B.R. then said, “I can’t tell you but I’m going to

draw it.” Id. B.R. drew a picture on the whiteboard of a person on hands and 

knees with a penis touching the person’s butt area. B.R. said, “that’s my butt,”

and Herb asked what the penis was. Id. at 248. B.R. said, “it’s a bad word,”

but volunteered to write it. Id. at 249. B.R. then drew an arrow to the penis 

and wrote, “di**.” Id. Herb asked, “Who’s private part is that?”, and B.R.

responded, “My dad.” Id. B.R. said that the abuse happened in her house and 

in her room sometimes. B.R. said the abuse hurt but “not as much as here,”

and motioned to her vaginal area. Id. B.R. was uncomfortable and erased the 

whiteboard quickly. After B.R. left the room, Herb recreated B.R.’s drawing. 

Herb immediately contacted the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) and 

law enforcement.

[5] The same day, Detective Lorrie Freiburger, a detective with the Fort Wayne 

Police Department and forensic interviewer with the Dr. Bill Lewis Center for 

Children, interviewed B.R. B.R. told Detective Freiburger that Reed does 

“gross stuff” to B.R.; Reed puts his “di**” in her “pee-pee” and butt, and “it 

really hurts”; “water” comes out of Reed’s penis; Reed would lick his finger, 

put it in B.R.’s vagina, and put his finger back in his mouth; Reed put his penis 

in B.R.’s mouth, and Reed’s hair got in B.R.’s mouth; when Reed’s penis was 

in B.R.’s mouth, Reed’s hands touched B.R.’s butt and vagina; and Reed put 

his mouth on B.R.’s “pee-pee.” State’s Exhibit 5. Reed also showed B.R. 

pornographic videos on his cell phone of a girl putting a penis in her mouth. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-354 | October 28, 2020 Page 4 of 20

[6] B.R. relayed to Detective Freiburger that the abuse happened in B.R.’s 

bedroom and Reed’s bedroom and that Reed also put his penis in B.R.’s mouth 

on the stairs leading to her bedroom. Further, Reed almost broke B.R.’s bed

during the abuse, so B.R. asked Reed to stay off her bed. Reed told B.R. not to 

tell anyone about the abuse. B.R. said that she could not recall the first time the 

abuse happened. B.R. said the abuse happened when she was nine years old 

and in the third grade, but the abuse also happened when she was “littler.” Id.

B.R. later said that the abuse last happened when she was nine years old; that 

the abuse did not happen when she was eight years old; but it happened when 

she was younger.

[7] Leslie Cook, a sexual assault nurse examiner at the Fort Wayne Sexual Assault 

Treatment Center in Fort Wayne, conducted a sexual assault examination of 

B.R. B.R. reported to Nurse Cook the following:

“About my dad? He said it was a secret. We have to keep it 

away from her (clarify: “mommy”) because we’ll get in trouble. 

I’m scared because there’s some redness (points to [female sex 

organ]) & it really hurts. Daddy used his thing—di**—and got it 

in my pee-pee and messed around with it, with his hand too—

messing around with it (patient demonstrates by moving her 

fingers in a scratching like motion). And he got it in my butt—

yuck! (Clarifies “his di**”) it felt like there was skin coming off 

the sides of my butt. He put his di** in my mouth too. I got a

hairball & puked it out on the steps. And it was hair from my 

dad’s di**.” It was black and my dad’s hair is black. Are we 

done I’m tired. . . Will you tell my dad to stop this because I 

really don’t like it, I really don’t.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-354 | October 28, 2020 Page 5 of 20

State’s Exhibit 3; Tr. Vol. III pp. 50-51. Nurse Cook found no injuries on B.R. 

during her examination.

[8] The State charged Reed with ten counts of child molesting, all Level 1 felonies, 

as follows:

I. Child molesting by sexual intercourse for Reed’s actions 

between July 1, 2018, and August 30, 2018.

II. Child molesting by anal intercourse for Reed’s actions 

between July 1, 2018, and August 30, 2018.

III. Child molesting for acts involving B.R.’s mouth and 

Reed’s penis for Reed’s actions between July 1, 2018, and 

August 30, 2018.

IV. Child molesting for the penetration of B.R.’s sex organ by 

an object between July 1, 2018, and August 30, 2018.

V. Child molesting for acts involving Reed’s mouth and 

B.R.’s sex organ between July 1, 2018, and August 30, 

2018.

VI. Child molesting by sexual intercourse for Reed’s actions 

between October 1, 2015, and June 30, 2018.

VII. Child molesting by anal intercourse for Reed’s actions 

between October 1, 2015, and June 30, 2018.

VIII. Child molesting for acts involving B.R.’s mouth and 

Reed’s penis for Reed’s actions between October 1, 2015, 

and June 30, 2018.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-354 | October 28, 2020 Page 6 of 20

IX. Child molesting for the penetration of B.R.’s sex organ by 

an object between October 1, 2015, and June 30, 2018.

X. Child molesting for acts involving Reed’s mouth and 

B.R.’s sex organ between October 1, 2015, and June 30, 

2018.

[9] In June 2019, the State filed a notice of intent to offer protected person 

testimony pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-37-4-62 during the trial, 

2 Indiana Code Section 35-37-4-6 provides in part:

(a) This section applies to a criminal action involving the following offenses where the 

victim is a protected person under subsection (c)(1) or (c)(2):

(1) Sex crimes (IC 35-42-4).

* * * * *

(c) As used in this section, “protected person” means:

(1) a child who is less than fourteen (14) years of age;

* * * * *

(d) A statement or videotape that:

(1) is made by a person who at the time of trial is a protected person;

(2) concerns an act that is a material element of an offense listed in subsection (a) or 

(b) that was allegedly committed against the person; and

(3) is not otherwise admissible in evidence;

is admissible in evidence in a criminal action for an offense listed in subsection (a) or 

(b) if the requirements of subsection (e) are met.

(e) A statement or videotape described in subsection (d) is admissible in evidence in a 

criminal action listed in subsection (a) or (b) if, after notice to the defendant of a 

hearing and of the defendant’s right to be present, all of the following conditions are 

met:

(1) The court finds, in a hearing:

(A) conducted outside the presence of the jury; and

(B) attended by the protected person in person or by using closed circuit 

television testimony as described in section 8(f) and 8(g) of this chapter;

that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement or videotape provide 

sufficient indications of reliability.

(2) The protected person:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-354 | October 28, 2020 Page 7 of 20

including a recording of B.R.’s forensic interview; B.R.’s statements at the Fort 

Wayne Sexual Assault Treatment Center; and B.R.’s statements to Herb. After 

a hearing, at which B.R. and several others testified, the trial court found that 

“B.R. testifying in the physical presence of [Reed] would cause her to suffer 

emotional distress such that she would be unable to effectively communicate.” 

(A) testifies at the trial; or

(B) is found by the court to be unavailable as a witness for one (1) of the 

following reasons:

(i) From the testimony of a psychiatrist, physician, or psychologist, 

and other evidence, if any, the court finds that the protected 

person’s testifying in the physical presence of the defendant will 

cause the protected person to suffer serious emotional distress such 

that the protected person cannot reasonably communicate.

(ii) The protected person cannot participate in the trial for medical 

reasons.

(iii) The court has determined that the protected person is 

incapable of understanding the nature and obligation of an oath.

(f) If a protected person is unavailable to testify at the trial for a reason listed in 

subsection (e)(2)(B), a statement or videotape may be admitted in evidence under 

this section only if the protected person was available for cross-examination:

(1) at the hearing described in subsection (e)(1); or

(2) when the statement or videotape was made.

* * * * *

(h) If a statement or videotape is admitted in evidence under this section, the court shall 

instruct the jury that it is for the jury to determine the weight and credit to be given 

the statement or videotape and that, in making that determination, the jury shall 

consider the following:

(1) The mental and physical age of the person making the statement or videotape.

(2) The nature of the statement or videotape.

(3) The circumstances under which the statement or videotape was made.

(4) Other relevant factors.

(i) If a statement or videotape described in subsection (d) is admitted into evidence 

under this section, a defendant may introduce a:

(1) transcript; or

(2) videotape;

of the hearing held under subsection (e)(1) into evidence at trial.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-354 | October 28, 2020 Page 8 of 20

Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 62. The trial court concluded that the requirements 

of Indiana Code Section 35-37-4-6 were met and that the State was permitted to 

“present evidence of the child’s statements to the school counselor, the sexual 

assault nurse examiner, and the videotape of B.R.’s forensic interview to the 

jury in the trial of this matter.” Id. at 63.

[10] At Reed’s December 2019 jury trial, B.R. did not testify. Herb, Detective 

Freiburger, and Nurse Cook testified as to B.R.’s statements. The video of 

B.R.’s forensic interview and the video of Reed’s attorney cross-examining B.R. 

at the protected person hearing were played for the jury. Reed objected to 

portions of Detective Freiburger’s testimony as “impermissible vouching” and 

objected that Detective Freiburger’s testimony improperly commented on 

Reed’s cross-examination of B.R. at the protected person hearing. Tr. Vol. III. 

99. The trial court overruled the objections. The State later sought to admit a 

photograph of anal lubricant found in a cardboard box beneath a bed in the 

downstairs bedroom of Reed’s house during the execution of a search warrant. 

Reed objected to the admission of the photograph, but the trial court overruled 

the objection.

[11] The jury found Reed guilty of all ten counts, and the trial court sentenced Reed 

to an aggregate sentence of fifty years in the Indiana Department of Correction. 

Reed now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-354 | October 28, 2020 Page 9 of 20

Analysis

I. Admission of Evidence

[12] Reed challenges the admission of certain evidence during his trial. We review 

challenges to the admission of evidence for an abuse of the trial court’s

discretion. Fansler v. State, 100 N.E.3d 250, 253 (Ind. 2018). In those instances, 

we will reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of 

the facts and circumstances. Id.

A. Detective Freiburger’s Alleged Vouching

[13] Reed argues that Detective Freiburger’s testimony was inadmissible because she 

vouched for B.R.’s credibility. Vouching testimony is specifically prohibited 

under Indiana Evidence Rule 704(b), which states: “Witnesses may not testify 

to opinions concerning intent, guilt, or innocence in a criminal case; the truth or 

falsity of allegations; whether a witness has testified truthfully; or legal 

conclusions.” “Such vouching testimony is an invasion of the province of the 

jurors in determining the weight they should place upon a witness’s testimony.” 

Carter v. State, 31 N.E.3d 17, 29 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. “It is 

essential that the trier of fact determine the credibility of the witnesses and the 

weight of the evidence.” Id.

[14] In Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230, 1231 (Ind. 2012), our Supreme Court 

addressed the issue of vouching and held that “testimony amounting to the 

equivalent that a witness believes the child is telling the truth is inconsistent 

with our rules of evidence.” The Court held a question that “necessarily 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-354 | October 28, 2020 Page 10 of 20

requires the witness to pass judgment on [the child’s] allegations, or ‘story’ . . .

invites direct vouching of the child witness’ allegations regardless of the child’s 

motives.” Hoglund, 962 N.E.2d at 1237-38. The Court further held that “[n]o 

witness, whether lay or expert, is competent to testify that another witness is or 

is not telling the truth.” Id. 

[15] Here, in the first exchange at issue, Detective Freiburger testified as follows:

Q. Will children, in your experience as a forensic interviewer or 

your time with kids, will they ever say they don’t remember?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Is that a fairly [ ], common device?

A. Right. [ ]

Q. Is that a fairly common device?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Can you explain please?

A. [ ] (affirmative answer). When I’m doing a forensic interview 

with a child and they start telling me I don’t remember and if I 

start hearing it two (2) or three (3) times, especially right in a 

row, my usual, my follow-up question to that would be, “Do you 

not remember or do you just not want to talk about it?” [ ]

[W]hen kids tell you I don’t remember, that is one of the most 

common ways of saying I don’t want to talk about . . . 

something.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-354 | October 28, 2020 Page 11 of 20

Tr. Vol. III p. 98. 

[16] Reed notes that the State presented this testimony “almost immediately after 

the jury watched Mr. Reed’s cross-examination of B.R. during the protected 

person hearing” and that B.R. frequently answered Reed’s cross-examination 

questions with “I don’t remember.” Appellant’s Br. p. 16. Reed claims that the 

“timing of the exchange bolsters B.R.’s credibility to the jury.” Id.

[17] We conclude that Detective Freiburger’s testimony did not constitute vouching

as analyzed by Hoglund or violate Indiana Evidence Rule 704(b). Detective 

Freiburger did not mention B.R. during this particular testimony or make any 

statement or express any opinion regarding the truth or falsity of B.R.’s 

allegations. Rather, Detective Freiburger was merely commenting on general 

methods of questioning children. We have found that such generalized 

testimony does not constitute vouching. See Carter, 31 N.E.3d at 29 (holding 

that the forensic interviewer’s testimony did not constitute impermissible 

vouching where she did not express opinions on the victim’s credibility and her 

testimony was broad and generalized); see also Baumholser v. State, 62 N.E.3d 

411 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (holding that the forensic interviewer’s testimony that

victims of child molesting often delay disclosure was “a statement about how 

victims of child molesting behave in general,” not improper vouching), trans. 

denied. The trial court properly admitted this testimony.

[18] As for the timing of the testimony and the playing of B.R.’s cross-examination

testimony from the protected person hearing, the State properly notes that Reed 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-354 | October 28, 2020 Page 12 of 20

requested that the video of B.R.’s cross-examination be played during Detective 

Freiburger’s testimony immediately after the video of B.R.’s forensic interview. 

Reed cannot now complain that the timing created a vouching issue. See 

Batchelor v. State, 119 N.E.3d 550, 556 (Ind. 2019) (holding that “invited error 

typically forecloses appellate review altogether” and a “party will not be 

permitted to take advantage of errors which he himself committed or invited or 

induced the trial court to commit, or which were the natural consequences of 

his own neglect or misconduct”).

[19] In the second exchange at issue, Detective Freiburger on direct examination 

testified:

Q. [ ] [D]uring that examination of B.R. by Mr. Baldwin, [ ] that 

examination was clearly not conducted in a [ ] forensic interview 

setting, was it?

A. It was not.

Q. Why do you conduct that, the child interviews in an 

interview center?

A. Because they’re, they’re neutral. [ ] [T]here’s a format that 

we follow that’s been accredited through the court system. It’s, 

uh, just the child and I interacting and it allows the child the 

ability to express themselves verbally and non-verbally in a childfriendly appropriate way.

Tr. Vol. III p. 101.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-354 | October 28, 2020 Page 13 of 20

[20] Reed argues that Detective Freiburger’s comment is a “direct assessment of 

another witness’s testimony” and that her testimony gave the jury “the 

impression that the forensic interview is sanctioned by the court system . . . .” 

Appellant’s Br. p. 17. We disagree. Detective Freiburger did not comment on 

B.R.’s demeanor or truthfulness in the forensic interview as compared to her 

cross-examination during the protected person hearing. Again, Detective 

Freiburger was commenting on methods of interviewing children in general, 

not vouching for B.R. Reed could have cross-examined Detective Freiburger

regarding her comments that the forensic interview process is “accredited 

through the court system.” Tr. Vol. III p. 101. The trial court did not abuse its 

discretion by admitting this testimony.

B. Detective Freiburger’s Alleged Comment on Reed’s Right to CrossExamination

[21] Next, Reed argues that, in the second exchange at issue above, Detective 

Freiburger improperly commented on Reed’s right to cross-examine B.R. 

According to Reed, Detective Freiburger “criticized the very nature of the crossexamination—that it does not occur in a forensic interview center, implying 

that it does not lend itself to the child expressing him or herself.” Appellant’s 

Br. p. 18. Reed cites no authority for the proposition that his right to crossexamination can be violated by a witness commenting on the nature of crossexamination. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8) (requiring argument to be 

supported by cogent reasoning and citations to authorities). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-354 | October 28, 2020 Page 14 of 20

[22] The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides: “In all 

criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to . . . be confronted 

with the witnesses against him.” Similarly, Article 1, Section 13 of the Indiana 

Constitution provides: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the 

right . . . to meet the witnesses face to face.” B.R. was cross-examined by 

Reed’s attorney at the protected person hearing as authorized by Indiana Code 

Section 35-37-4-6, and the video of that cross-examination was admitted at the 

trial and shown to the jury along with the video of B.R.’s forensic interview. 

We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting this 

testimony over Reed’s objection. 

C. Lubricant

[23] Next, Reed argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting 

evidence that Reed possessed anal lubricant. Reed contends that this evidence 

was irrelevant. Indiana Evidence Rule 401 provides: “Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be 

without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the 

action.” Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. See Ind. Evidence Rule 402. “The 

court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially 

outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, 

confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly presenting 

cumulative evidence.” Ind. Evidence Rule 403.

[24] In support of Reed’s argument that the admission of the photograph of anal 

lubricant was improper, Reed relies on Remy v. State, 17 N.E.3d 396 (Ind. Ct. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-354 | October 28, 2020 Page 15 of 20

App. 2014), trans. denied. There, during his trial for child molestation, the 

defendant objected to admission of several pornographic images found in his 

home. The defendant argued that the pornographic images were “irrelevant, 

highly prejudicial, and inadmissible under” Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b), 

which pertains to evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or other acts. Remy, 17 

N.E.3d at 399. One of the images had “strong parallel[s]” to one of the charged 

acts, and we concluded that the trial court properly admitted that image. Id. at 

401. With respect to the remainder of the images, however, we concluded that 

the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed their probative value. 

Accordingly, our Court found that the remainder of the photographs should not 

have been admitted at trial.

[25] We do not find Remy persuasive here. Reed argues that B.R. never mentioned 

the use of anal lubricant, and there was no connection between B.R. and the 

lubricant. B.R., however, claimed that Reed repeatedly inserted his penis into 

her anus, along with other sexual activity. Nurse Cook testified that she found 

no injuries to B.R. during her examination. Nurse Cook explained several 

reasons why “as many as ninety-five (95) percent of children will have 

completely normal examinations. And that would [ ] be of the female sex 

organ [ ] and certainly it can be as high as ninety-nine (99) percent of children 

will not [sic] injury [ ] if there’s been an anal penetration.” Tr. Vol. III p. 36. 

Over Reed’s objection, Nurse Cook also testified that lubricant can prevent 

injury. Later, the State sought to admit a photograph of anal lubricant found in 

a cardboard box beneath a bed in the downstairs bedroom of Reed’s house 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-354 | October 28, 2020 Page 16 of 20

during the execution of a search warrant. Reed objected to the admission of the 

photograph, but the trial court overruled the objection. 

[26] The lubricant was relevant to provide a possible explanation for B.R.’s lack of 

injuries. Moreover, Reed fails to explain how the probative value of the 

lubricant was substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice. We 

conclude that the danger of unfair prejudice is minimal here. There was 

minimal testimony and evidence presented regarding the lubricant. Under 

these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the 

photograph of the lubricant.

II. Sufficiency of the Evidence

[27] Reed also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions 

for Counts VI through X. Sufficiency of the evidence claims “warrant a 

deferential standard, in which we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge 

witness credibility.” Powell v. State, 151 N.E.3d 256, 262 (Ind. 2020). We 

consider only the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable 

inferences drawn from that evidence. Id. We will affirm a conviction if there is 

substantial evidence of probative value that would lead a reasonable trier of fact 

to conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[28] The offense of Level 1 felony child molesting is governed by Indiana Code 

Section 35-42-4-3(a), which provides: “A person who, with a child under 

fourteen (14) years of age, knowingly or intentionally performs or submits to 

sexual intercourse or other sexual conduct (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-221.5) 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-354 | October 28, 2020 Page 17 of 20

commits child molesting . . . .” The offense is a Level 1 felony if “it is 

committed by a person at least twenty-one (21) years of age.” Ind. Code 35-42-

4-3(a)(1). In Counts I through V, the State charged Reed with child molesting 

as Level 1 felonies for Reed’s actions between July 1, 2018, and August 30, 

2018. In Counts VI through X, the State charged Reed with child molesting as 

Level 1 felonies for Reed’s actions between October 1, 2015, and June 30, 2018. 

[29] Reed argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions in Counts 

VI through X because the evidence does not establish any molestations 

occurred between October 1, 2015, and June 30, 2018. B.R.’s statements 

regarding the timing of the offenses were admittedly imprecise. We do not, 

however, find that fatal to the sufficiency of the evidence here. 

[30] Indiana Code Section 35-34-1-2(a)(5) requires a charging information to state 

“the date of the offense with sufficient particularity to show that the offense was 

committed within the period of limitations applicable to that offense.” Here, 

the statutory period of limitations is not an issue—a prosecution for a Level 1 

felony child molesting must be commenced before the alleged victim reaches 

thirty-one years of age, and B.R. was nine years old when this prosecution 

commenced. Ind. Code § 35-41-4-2(c), (e). 

[31] Moreover, Indiana Code Section 35-34-1-2(a)(6) requires the charging 

information to state “the time of the offense as definitely as can be done if time 

is of the essence of the offense.” It is well-established that, where time is not of 

the essence of the offense, “the State is not confined to proving the commission 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-354 | October 28, 2020 Page 18 of 20

on the date alleged in the affidavit or indictment, but may prove the 

commission at any time within the statutory period of limitations.” Love v. 

State, 761 N.E.2d 806, 809 (Ind. 2002). Time is not of the essence in child 

molesting cases. Id. In such cases, “the exact date is only important in limited 

circumstances, such as where the victim’s age at the time of the offense falls at 

or near the dividing line between classes of felonies.” Id.

[32] The important age for determining levels of felonies in child molesting cases is 

fourteen. Compare Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3 (defining child molesting as occurring 

with a child under the age of fourteen years), and Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9

(defining sexual misconduct with a minor as occurring with a child at least 

fourteen years of age).3 B.R. testified that the molestations occurred when she 

was nine years old and younger. Therefore, the precise dates of the offenses are

not of the essence and are not material elements of the crimes.

[33] Reed also argues that B.R.’s claims were incredibly dubious. Application of the 

incredibly dubiosity doctrine requires that there be: “1) a sole testifying witness; 

2) testimony that is inherently contradictory, equivocal, or the result of 

coercion; and 3) a complete absence of circumstantial evidence.” Moore v. State, 

3 At the time of these offenses, Indiana Code Section 35-42-4-9(a) provided, in part: “A person at least 

eighteen (18) years of age who, with a child at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16) years 

of age, performs or submits to sexual intercourse or other sexual conduct (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-221.5) 

commits sexual misconduct with a minor, a Level 5 felony.” Indiana Code Section 35-42-4-9(a) was 

amended effective July 1, 2019, after the commission of these offenses, and now provides, in part: “A person 

at least eighteen (18) years of age who knowingly or intentionally performs or submits to sexual intercourse 

or other sexual conduct (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-221.5) with a child less than sixteen (16) years of age, 

commits sexual misconduct with a minor, a Level 5 felony.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-354 | October 28, 2020 Page 19 of 20

27 N.E.3d 749, 756 (Ind. 2015). “[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.

(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.’” Id. (quoting Edwards, 753 N.E.2d at 622). A 

conviction of child molesting may rest on the uncorroborated testimony of the 

victim. Young v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1225, 1227 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. 

denied.

[34] B.R. turned nine years old in early August 2018, and was in the third grade 

when she disclosed the abuse to Herb on August 30, 2018. During her forensic 

interview, B.R. said that she did not know the first time the abuse happened. 

B.R. said the abuse happened when she was nine years old and in third grade, 

but the abuse also happened when she was “littler.” State’s Exhibit 5. B.R. 

later said that the abuse last happened when she was nine years old; that it did 

not happen when she was eight years old; but that it happened when she was 

younger. B.R. described multiple episodes of sexual acts, including vaginal

intercourse, anal intercourse, Reed placing his fingers in her vagina, Reed 

placing his penis in B.R.’s mouth, and Reed placing his mouth on B.R.’s 

vagina. Although B.R. was unclear on the exact timing of the abuse, time is not 

of the essence here. 

[35] B.R.’s testimony was age appropriate and was not inherently contradictory, 

equivocal, or the result of coercion. Accordingly, the incredible dubiosity 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-354 | October 28, 2020 Page 20 of 20

doctrine does not apply here. Reed’s argument is merely a request that we 

reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses, which we cannot 

do. See Powell, 151 N.E.3d at 262. The evidence is sufficient to sustain Reed’s 

convictions in Counts VI through X.

Conclusion

[36] The trial court properly admitted Detective Freiburger’s testimony and the 

photograph of the anal lubricant. The evidence was sufficient to sustain Reed’s 

convictions in Counts VI through X. Accordingly, we affirm.

[37] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Pyle, J., concur.