Court Opinion

ID: 9710478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:10:29.638212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:58.523177
License: Public Domain

FRIEDLANDER, Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority in all matters except one: I do not believe there was sufficient evidence to prove. penetration. Accordingly, I would affirm Smith's convietion for child molesting, but would reduce it from a class A to a class C felony.
*119The majority has ably set out the law that guides us in reviewing child molesting convictions. I stress especially that I share the majority's view concerning the considerations peculiar to reviewing the testimony of a young child. It goes without saying that the ability to communicate develops with age, and therefore that extreme youth is generally attended by a limited ability to express oneself. In fact, it is for this reason that the legislature has codified what can only be characterized as a relaxation of the rules of evidence that apply in most other circumstances. One such statute, Ind.Code Ann. § 85-37-4-6 (West 1998), provided the means by which the interview conducted by Hoffman was admitted into evidence. I believe the only arguable evidence of penetration was contained in that interview.
Before I discuss the substance of Hoffman's interview with V.D. on the issue of penetration, I wish to express my view that the cireumstantial evidence of penetration in this case is practically nonexistent. There were no soiled clothing, towels, or bed sheets tending to prove that V.D. was penetrated. V.D.'s body did not display signs of penetration. That is to say, a medical examination of V.D. shortly after the alleged molestation revealed no evidence of molestation, let alone penetration. I am aware that such does not prove that V.D. was not penetrated. I think it is stretching the point too far, however, to characterize this as "consistent with an allegation of penetration of female sex organs." Op. at 116. At most, it is not inconsistent with penetration. This is not merely an exercise in semantics. The distinction between "consistent with" penetration and "not inconsistent with" penetration is significant here in view of the allocation of the burden of proof. Surely it cannot be said to help the State's case that there was no physical indication of penetration. In short, I do not view that as proof of anything. *
Lacking any cireumstantial evidence of penetration, proof of penetration in this case rests entirely upon the substance of V.D.'s accounts of what occurred. The majority finds such proof in V.D.'s interview with Hoffman. I do not. It is clear from V.D.'s account of the occurrence that Smith molested her. This was amply proven by V.D.'s statements that Smith coaxed her into removing her pants, lowered her underwear, and then instructed her to lay face-down on the bed. After that, according to V.D., Smith removed his own pants and rubbed against V.D. from behind until he ejaculated. I agree with my colleagues that the foregoing chronology of events was adequately proven by V.D.'s statements during the interview. That information was sufficient by itself to support a conviction for child molesting as a class C felony, but proof of penetration is required to elevate the conviction to a class A felony. The majority concludes that such may reasonably be inferred from the foregoing and other statements made by V.D. For instance, the fact that ejaculate was found "on her private" is cited as supporting an inference of penetration: I note that V.D. stated that ejaculate was found also on the bed. I do not intend to be flip by observing that no one has suggested that Smith penetrated the bed. By this I mean to make the point that, based upon Smith's position relative to V.D. at the time of ejaculation, the force of gravity would have caused fluid to settle in those places so long as ejaculation occurred above them. I cannot agree that the location of ejaculate on V.D.'s body provided adequate cireumstantial evidence of penetration, especially in light of her description of what occurred.
This brings me to what in my opinion is the only arguable evidence of penetration. *120Lacking any circumstantial evidence of penetration, we must rely on V.D.'s account of the molestation to determine whether her genitals were penetrated. I have culled through that transcript and find only the following on the subject of whether penetration occurred:
A. THEN, UH, THEN I WAS TRYING, THEN I WAS TRYING TO GET UP THEN HE PULLED MY ARM THEN HE TOLD ME TO TURN AROUND ON MY BACK THEN HE PULLED MY PANTIES DOWN THEN HE SAID DO YOU WANT SOME CANDY AND I SAID YES, AND THEN HE SAID DO YOU WANT SOME MORE, DO YOU WANT IT RIGHT NOW AND HE GAVE IT TO ME, THEN HE GAVE IT TO ME, THEN HE, UH, PUT HIS PRIVATE IN MY PRIVATE.
* * * * *t %
Q. ... OK AND WHEN YOU SAID HE PUT IT ON YOUR PRIVATE UM HOW DID IT FEEL WHEN HE DID THAT?
A. NOT GOOD.
@. NOT GOOD? OK UM DID HE PUT IT ON THE OUTSIDE OF YOUR PRIVATE OR DID HE PUT IT ON THE INSIDE OF PRIVATE?
A. STRAIGHT.
Q. HMM.
A. STRAIGHT.
Q. UM I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. STRAIGHT? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
A HE DID IT STRAIGHT, STRAIGHT.
* i # ﬂ- *t #
Q. ... OK DID HE, DID HE EVER, UH, TOUCH HIS PRIVATE TO ANY OTHER PART OF YOUR BODY?
> ON THE STRAIGHT. AND SIDES .
© ON THE SIDES?
| AND STRAIGHT.
© ON THE SIDES OF WHAT?
A.. ON THE SIDE.
The Exhibits, State's Exhibit 15 at 9. As I have, stated, the only other evidence, of record having any relevance on the issue of penetration was the results of a physical examination that was performed upon V.D. shortly after she reported the molestations. The examination revealed no signs of physical trauma to V.D-.'s genitals.
It might be argued that V.D.'s statement that Smith put his private in her private could be construed as evidence of penetration. Still, it was vague enough that Hoffman sought clarification. The record excerpt reproduced above reflects that V.D. was pressed on precisely that point during the interview. When she was pointedly asked whether Smith placed his penis inside her "private", V.D. gave a response whose meaning is as mystifying to me as it evidently was to Hoffman. I may have been inclined to agree in principle that, vague as it was, "put his private in my private" supported a finding of penetration.. That inference was no longer reasonable, however, in view of V.D.'s subsequent explanation of what she meant by "in" her private. V.D.'s unintelligible explanation cannot reasonably be construed as proof that Smith "penetrated" her within the meaning of the child molestation statute. That, coupled with the complete lack of evidence of physical trauma, forces me to conclude that the evidence was insufficient to prove penetration. Therefore, there was no evidence from which a jury could find Smith guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of molesting V.D. by an act of sexual intercourse.
*121In summary, I share in my colleagues' observation that some allowances are appropriate when evaluating the testimony of a young victim of child molesting. IC. § 35-37-4-6 is one example of measures that have been enacted that permit factfin-ders some leeway in "connecting the dots" where the victim/witness is young and has limited communication skills. In my view, the distance between V.D. description of the molestation and that which the State was required to prove was too great to be connected by any inference that might reasonably have been drawn from V.D.'s testimony. I observe as a final matter that this is not to say V.D. was incapable of providing evidence that could have proved penetration occurred. The videotape of the interview with Hoffman reveals that V.D. is a child whose cognitive ability and communication skills leave no doubt that she was capable of discerning and relating whether her genitals were "penetrated," as that term is used in this context. Though her narrative and responses proved unhelpful, such is not the only means of obtaining the necessary information when the witness is a child. I note in this regard that the record is devoid of testimonial aids such as dolls and diagrams that are typically used to help young children describe molestation episodes. I believe it is likely here that, out of understandable concern for the young victim's feelings, the investigative authorities did not press the matter far enough and therefore stopped short of proving their case. I fear that this result will not be an isolated one.