COLLINS v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Jason Collins appeals his felony child molesting and incest convictions. Rejecting his claim that the incredible dubiosity rule applies to the testimony of the two victims and finding that sufficient evidence supports his convictions, we affirm.

Facts

[2] In March 2020, the Grant County Department of Child Services (DCS) received a report that Collins had sexually molested two young girls: B.C. (his biological daughter) and E.R. (a child placed in Collins's care while her mother was incarcerated). At the time of the report, B.C. was eleven and E.R. was ten. The evidence at trial revealed a disturbing pattern of daily sexual abuse over a period of years.

[3] E.R., born in April 2009, is a cousin of Collins's then-girlfriend, Angela Whitt. E.R. testified that shortly after she moved into Collins's home around age nine, Collins began sexually abusing her. Collins would “forcibly put [his penis] inside [her]” every day, and the abuse persisted the entire time E.R. was in Collins's home. Tr. Vol. II, p. 193. E.R. recounted numerous instances of other sexual conduct with Collins, including the fondling of her breasts and oral sex, and described how Collins would sometimes make her watch pornography during these assaults. Id. at 203. E.R. explained that Collins told her not to tell anyone about the abuse, and that if she did, B.C. would be taken away and she would never see her again.

[4] Collins's biological daughter, B.C., born in May 2008, testified that Collins placed “his penis in [her] vagina” or performed oral sex on her “nearly every day.” Id. at 235. She recalled moving into Collins's home around age seven or eight and stated that the abuse occurred “practically the whole time” she lived there. Id. at 233. B.C. went on to describe being forced to have intercourse in numerous positions, in various locations around the house, and often while Collins made her watch pornography. Collins told B.C. that if she told anyone about the abuse, she would be taken away and placed in foster care. At that point, she was “afraid of being taken away.” Id. at 245. B.C. recalled how Collins explained what he was doing to her: “He said it was his way of showing me love.” Id. at 237.

[5] Further testimony from E.R. and B.C. revealed that on multiple occasions, Collins engaged in sexual conduct involving both girls simultaneously. E.R. testified that Collins would “have his penis in me and his mouth on [B.C.’s] vagina.” Id. at 207. Sometimes Angela Whitt also participated in the assaults. B.C. testified: “[Collins] would have intercourse with [Whitt] while touching me. Sometimes he would have intercourse with me while I was forced to touch [Whitt].” Id. at 238. E.R. stated that on at least three separate occasions, she witnessed sexual conduct between Collins, Whitt, and B.C.

[6] When DCS received a hotline tip in March 2020 regarding Collins's sexual abuse, a caseworker went to Collins's home to interview the girls. But before B.C. was taken for an interview at a child advocacy center, both the DCS caseworker and an accompanying police officer witnessed Collins hug B.C. from behind and tell her: “you do not have to tell them shit.” Id. at 34. Neither B.C. nor E.R. disclosed the abuse during their first interview, and they were returned to Collins's home.

[7] Eight months later, DCS received another hotline report of sexual misconduct regarding Collins. This prompted DCS to once again interview E.R., who at that point was no longer living with Collins. During that interview, E.R. made disclosures that led DCS to remove B.C. from the home. B.C. was then reinterviewed but again made no disclosure. She was placed in foster care, and based on concerns raised by her foster mother a few weeks later, B.C. was interviewed a third time. There, she disclosed Collins's sexual abuse.

[8] Both girls were diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease soon after their removal from Collins's home. Police then obtained a search warrant for a urine sample from Collins to test for such diseases, but he refused and instead urinated on himself to avoid providing urine for the test.

[9] Collins was charged with multiple felonies: two counts of Level 1 felony child molesting, one count of Level 4 child molesting, and one count of Level 4 felony incest.¹ At this point, Whitt—who had also been charged in connection with the abuse—told police that she had witnessed multiple instances of Collins engaging in sexual conduct with B.C. and E.R.

[10] After a trial, a jury found Collins guilty on all counts, and he was convicted accordingly. Collins was ultimately sentenced to an aggregate term of seventy-five years. He now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[11] Collins's sole argument on appeal is that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his convictions. Specifically, Collins invokes the incredible dubiosity rule to argue that because both victims initially denied any abuse, their later trial testimony was inherently unreliable. Because we find that such rule does not apply here, and because sufficient evidence supports his convictions, we affirm.

I. Incredible Dubiosity Rule

[12] Generally, the uncorroborated testimony of a victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012). The incredible dubiosity rule presents a narrow exception, permitting an appellate court to impinge upon the jury's assessment of witness credibility only in very limited circumstances. Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 755 (Ind. 2015).

[13] For this rule to apply, three strict requirements must be met: “(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.” Id. at 756 (cleaned up). This is “a difficult standard to meet,” as it requires “great ambiguity and inconsistency in the evidence” and testimony “so convoluted and/or contrary to human experience that no reasonable person could believe it.” Id.

[14] Collins's claim fails on all three requirements. First, the testimony did not come from a single witness. Instead, both B.C. and E.R. testified about their own experiences of abuse and corroborated aspects of each other's accounts. Additionally, Whitt served as a third witness, testifying that she told police she had observed sexual conduct between Collins and each girl.

[15] Second, neither victim's testimony at trial was inherently contradictory. Collins points to E.R.’s and B.C.’s pre-trial statements—the initial interviews during which they did not disclose the abuse—as inconsistent with their trial testimony. But “witness testimony that contradicts [a] witness's earlier statements does not make such testimony ‘incredibly dubious.’ ” Smith v. State, 163 N.E.3d 925, 930 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Stephenson v. State, 742 N.E.2d 463, 498 (Ind. 2001)). The focus of the analysis is instead on inconsistencies within the witness's testimony at trial, and Collins alleges no such inconsistencies. E.R. and B.C.’s trial testimony remained consistent.

[16] Finally, circumstantial evidence corroborated the victims’ accounts. A cousin of E.R. named C.C. testified that E.R. made a concerning statement about Collins that C.C. conveyed to her mother, who called DCS. Additionally, both girls—then between the ages of eleven and twelve years old—were diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease shortly after their removal from Collins's home. When Collins was asked to provide a urine sample, he refused and instead urinated on himself. This evidence corroborates B.C.’s and E.R.’s accounts.

[17] On all three requirements, Collins fails to demonstrate that the incredible dubiosity rule applies to the testimony of B.C. and E.R.

II. Sufficiency of the Evidence

[18] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support convictions, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment without reweighing it or reassessing witness credibility. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We will affirm the conviction “unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.

[19] Here, the evidence overwhelmingly supports Collins's convictions. Both victims provided detailed, consistent accounts of sexual abuse by Collins, which supports all four of his convictions.

A. Level 1 Felony Child Molesting

[20] Collins was convicted of two counts of Level 1 felony child molesting: one count for E.R. and B.C. respectively. To prove that he committed these offenses, the State had to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Collins was at least 21 years old when he knowingly performed sexual intercourse or other sexual conduct with E.R. and B.C. while each girl was under 14 years of age. See Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a)(1). At trial, both victims gave specific and detailed testimony about Collins engaging in sexual intercourse with them while they were both under the age of 12 and while Collins was over 40 years old.

[21] E.R. testified that on numerous occasions, Collins “forcibly put [his penis] inside [her].” Tr. Vol II, p. 193. She stated that this began shortly after she first moved into Collins's home around age 9 and continued “every day” for multiple years. Id. at 198. Similarly, B.C. testified that Collins forced her to have sexual intercourse or oral sex nearly every day. She was 7 or 8 years old when the abuse began, and it continued for as long as she lived with Collins over the following two years. Both girls testified to having conversations with Collins in which he told them not to tell anyone about the abuse.

[22] This testimony is sufficient to support Collins's convictions for two counts of Level 1 felony child molestation.

B. Level 4 Felony Child Molesting

[23] Collins was also convicted of Level 4 felony child molesting as to E.R. For that conviction to stand, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Collins knowingly fondled or touched E.R. with the intent to arouse or satisfy his or E.R.’s sexual desires while E.R. was under 14 years of age. See Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(b).

[24] Again, E.R. testified extensively about various forms of sexual touching by Collins. E.R. testified that beyond sexual intercourse, Collins touched her inappropriately on “[her] vagina and breasts” more times than she could count. Tr. Vol. II, p. 200. She described Collins as touching both the outside and inside of her vagina. He only stopped the touching after he ejaculated. This evidence is sufficient to prove that Collins committed Level 4 felony child molesting.

C. Level 4 Felony Incest

[25] Finally, to prove that Collins committed Level 4 felony incest as to B.C., the State had to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that while Collins was at least 18 years old, he engaged in sexual intercourse or other sexual conduct with B.C. when she was less than 16 years of age, and when Collins knew he was her biological parent. See Ind. Code § 35-46-1-3.

[26] B.C. testified that Collins is her biological father and that he engaged in sexual intercourse with her “nearly every day.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 235. The evidence shows that Collins was aware he was her biological father: for example, B.C. testified that Collins said there would be “a full-blooded Collins” if he were to have a child with B.C. Id. at 248. Whitt also testified that Collins is the biological father of B.C. This evidence is sufficient to prove that Collins committed Level 4 felony incest.

Conclusion

[27] The incredible dubiosity rule does not apply to this case, and sufficient evidence supports Collins's convictions. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[28] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Collins was also charged with Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent. Though he was found guilty of such charge by the jury and subsequently convicted, his conviction for this charge was vacated at the request of the State due to double jeopardy concerns.

Weissmann, Judge.

Pyle, J., and Felix, J., concur.