Opinion ID: 853566
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence for Child Molesting

Text: Craig contends that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for the molestation of C.R. Our standard for reviewing a claim of sufficiency of the evidence is well settled. We do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Spurlock v. State, 675 N.E.2d 312, 314 (Ind.1996). We look to the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom that support the verdict and will affirm a conviction if evidence of probative value exists from which a jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Craig suggests that the State failed to present any direct evidence that he placed his penis in C.R.'s mouth. The absence of direct evidence entitles a defendant to a jury instruction to the effect that: [w]here proof of guilt is by circumstantial evidence only, it must be so conclusive in character and point so surely and unerringly to the guilt of the accused as to exclude every reasonable theory of innocence. 2 Indiana Pattern Jury Instructions (Criminal ) 12.01 (2d ed.1991). But we review the sufficiency of evidence to support a jury's verdict based solely on circumstantial evidence under a different standard. This Court need not find that the evidence overcomes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence but only that an inference may be drawn from the circumstantial evidence that supports the jury's verdict. Owens v. State, 514 N.E.2d 1257, 1258 (Ind.1987); accord Vehorn v. State, 717 N.E.2d 869, 876 (Ind.1999) (On appeal, the circumstantial evidence need not overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. It is enough if an inference reasonably tending to support the verdict can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence.) (citation omitted). Craig is correct that no witness saw him put his penis in C.R.'s mouth. Craig and C.R. were the only ones in the room and her eyes were covered with tape. The jury could nevertheless reasonably draw an inference from C.R.'s testimony that an act of molestation occurred. Craig's statements to police also support an inference of his guilt. This is sufficient evidence to support his conviction for child molesting.