MEDCALF v. STATE (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] David Taylor Medcalf (“Medcalf”) appeals his conviction for Level 4 felony child molesting,¹ challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] L.E. was born in 2008. In 2012, when L.E. was about four years old, Medcalf began dating her mother. Before long, Medcalf moved in with L.E., her mother, and her siblings. Medcalf and L.E.’s mother married in 2014. Around that time, the family moved to Anderson. At that point, Medcalf was generally responsible for caring for L.E. and her siblings while their mother was at work.

[3] When L.E. was five or six years old, Medcalf would tell her to sit on his lap. Medcalf then ground his hips and pelvis against L.E.’s body while massaging her hip and thigh area. Medcalf touched L.E.’s buttocks both under and over her clothes on more than one occasion while “sweet talking” to L.E. in what she described as a deep, slow voice. Tr. Vol. I p. 130. At one point, Medcalf put his hand slightly under L.E.’s shirt. Medcalf threatened to hurt L.E., himself, or L.E.’s pets if she told anyone what he was doing, and L.E. believed these threats. The way Medcalf touched L.E. made her feel “broken.” Id. at 135. Medcalf's behavior continued until L.E. was approximately eight or nine years old. Medcalf and L.E.’s mother separated in 2019, and they divorced in 2020.

[4] In July 2022, when L.E. was 14 years old, she disclosed Medcalf's abuse to a friend via text message. Concerned that L.E. might harm herself, the friend reported L.E.’s disclosure to the police. On July 9, 2022, L.E. and her mother went to the Anderson Police Department to report the abuse. L.E. eventually participated in a forensic interview, where she identified Medcalf as her abuser.

[5] On December 6, 2022, the State charged Medcalf with Level 4 felony child molesting. A jury trial was held in November 2023. L.E. testified at trial, as did L.E.’s mother, an investigating detective, and a representative from the Indiana Department of Child Services. The jury ultimately found Medcalf guilty as charged. On December 26, 2023, the trial court sentenced Medcalf to ten years in the Indiana Department of Correction with eight years executed and two years suspended to sex offender probation. Medcalf now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Medcalf challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for Level 4 felony child molesting. When reviewing a sufficiency challenge, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). Rather, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment, examining whether a reasonable fact-finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. So long as there was substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense, we will affirm. Walker v. State, 998 N.E.2d 724, 726 (Ind. 2013).

[7] To obtain the instant conviction, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Medcalf, with a child under fourteen years of age, performed or submitted to fondling or touching, of either the child or himself, with the intent to arouse or satisfy either his or the child's sexual desires. Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(b). On appeal, Medcalf argues that his conviction cannot stand because (1) L.E.’s testimony was incredibly dubious and (2) the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he acted with the requisite intent.

I. Incredible Dubiosity

[8] Medcalf argues that we should disregard L.E.’s testimony because the testimony was incredibly dubious. The incredible dubiosity rule is a limited exception to our obligation to view the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment. See, e.g., Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 754 (Ind. 2015). This rule applies “only in exceptionally rare circumstances” involving witness testimony that is “inherently improbable, unimaginable, or otherwise outside the realm of human experience.” McCallister v. State, 91 N.E.3d 554, 559 (Ind. 2018).

[9] Medcalf argues that L.E.’s testimony was incredibly dubious because she did not claim that he had an erection during the sexual abuse. Medcalf asserts that “[i]t would be impossible for such action to have taken place many times without [him] ever being physically aroused.” Appellant's Br. p. 6. Yet, L.E. consistently described Medcalf's actions, testifying about how Medcalf touched her buttocks over and under her clothes, had her sit on his lap, and ground his pelvis against her while massaging her hips and thighs. The fact that L.E. did not specifically mention whether Medcalf had an erection does not render her testimony incredibly dubious. We therefore decline to disregard her testimony.

II. Intent to Arouse

[10] Medcalf next argues that there was insufficient evidence of his intent to arouse or satisfy either his or L.E.’s sexual desires. “The intent element of child molesting may be established by circumstantial evidence and may be inferred from the actor's conduct and the natural and usual sequence to which such conduct usually points.” Bowles v. State, 737 N.E.2d 1150, 1152 (Ind. 2000).

[11] Medcalf compares his case to Markiton v. State, 139 N.E.2d 440 (Ind. 1957). There, our Supreme Court determined that there was insufficient evidence of the defendant's sexual intent where the evidence indicated only that a father came into contact with his daughter's breast during “playfulness” at bedtime. Id. at 441–42. Whereas Markiton involved physical contact that occurred while the defendant was being playful, the evidence here shows that Medcalf's actions were not part of a playful exchange. L.E. testified that Medcalf had her sit on his lap while he ground his pelvis against her and massaged her hips, touched her buttocks both under and over her clothes on multiple occasions, moved his hand under her shirt, “sweet talk[ed]” to her, and threatened her not to tell anyone. Tr Vol. I pp. 126–30. From this evidence, a reasonable jury could infer that Medcalf acted with the intent to arouse or satisfy his sexual desires.

Conclusion

[12] Sufficient evidence supports the conviction for Level 4 felony child molesting because the incredible dubiosity rule does not apply, and the evidence presented supports a reasonable inference that Medcalf acted with the requisite intent.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(b).

Foley, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.