Opinion ID: 2183231
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Issue 2 Sufficiency of Credible Evidence Generally

Text: Defendant next contends that upon the central evidentiary issue, consent, the sole evidence is the testimony of M.A. Defendant then alleges that numerous examples of her testimony are contradicted by other evidence, and argues that her testimony is not sufficiently credible to constitute evidence of probative value. We disagree. Defendant's arguments go to the credibility of this witness, which is for the jury to determine. We do not find this to be a case of inherently improbable, coerced, equivocal, or wholly uncorroborated testimony of incredible dubiosity. See, Rodgers v. State (1981), Ind., 422 N.E.2d 1211, 1213; c.f., Penn v. State (1957), 237 Ind. 374, 146 N.E.2d 240. In this case, M.A.'s testimony was not utterly unbelievable. Defendant contends that her version was overwhelmingly inconsistent and contradicted. Inconsistencies existing within trial testimony or with previous out-of-court statements goes to the weight to be afforded the credibility of the testimony, the resolution of which is the province of the trier-of-fact. Ingram v. State (1981), Ind., 421 N.E.2d 1103. We will neither judge the credibility of the witnesses or reweigh the evidence. We reject defendant's argument on this issue.