Jorge Louis Estien, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Jorge Louis Estien appeals his convictions of two counts of Level 1 felony child molesting,¹ one count of Level 3 felony rape,² one count of Level 3 felony attempted rape,³ two counts of Level 4 felony child molesting,⁴ and one count of Level 4 felony incest.⁵ Estien presents one issue, which we restate as whether Indiana law should require a child victim's testimony be corroborated before an accused can be convicted of crimes against that child. We reject Estien's request for a change in Indiana's well-settled standard that accepts the uncorroborated testimony of a child as sufficient to support a conviction and affirm his convictions.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The victims in this case are twin sisters, Aa.E. and Ax.E. (collectively, “the twins”), who were born in 2007. Their mother passed away in 2014, so their father, Ramon, obtained custody of them. Estien, who is the twins’ paternal grandfather, and his wife, Bessie, provided regular transportation from daycare for the twins’ younger brother and would frequently supervise all three children during afternoon hours while Ramon worked. On days when Bessie went to bingo with her sisters, Estien would be alone with the three children. Also, in 2014 or 2015, Ramon and the three children stayed in Estien's home while waiting for their new residence to be ready.

[3] When Aa.E. was approximately eight years old, while she was sitting on the bed in the guest bedroom in Estien's house, Estien stood over her and touched her chest and vagina under her clothes and put his fingers in her vagina; Estien stopped touching her when Ax.E. knocked on the closed bedroom door to ask if the children could have popsicles. When Aa.E. was eleven, Estien again stood over her when she was on the bed, touched her breasts and vagina with his hand, penetrated her vagina with his fingers, bit her breasts, licked her vagina, and indicated he wanted to have intercourse with her; Aa.E. was able to leave the bedroom this time because Ax.E. called her name from another part of the house. When Aa.E. was twelve, Estien pinned her on the bed and attempted to insert his penis into her vagina, but Aa.E. was able to kick him and escape the situation.

[4] When Ax.E. was between the ages of eleven and thirteen, Estien would wrestle with her, but unlike when she wrestled with her brothers, Estien would hold her down and touch her breasts, vagina, and butt with his hands. When Ax.E. was eleven years old, Estien offered her candy, had her sit on his lap, and rubbed her arms, legs and sides. On a day when the family was helping Ramon's sister move, Ax.E. was alone in Estien's house with him, and Estien pushed her onto the guest bed, took off her pants, licked her vagina, and penetrated her vagina with his penis. Estien licked Ax.E.’s vagina on three or four different days and had intercourse with her more than two times. Estien also touched Ax.E.’s body and digitally penetrated her vagina when the two of them were alone together in his truck on the way home from school. Ax.E. estimated that Estien committed acts against her “around 20” times when she as between the ages of eleven and fourteen. (Tr. Vol. III at 99.)

[5] Ramon placed Ax.E. in therapy when she was sixteen due to concerns about her behavior and emotional well-being. Ax.E. disclosed the abuse to her therapist, and the therapist reported the disclosure to the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) hotline. When Ramon heard that Ax.E. had been abused by Estien, he asked Aa.E. if she had been abused, and Aa.E. said that she had. Ramon reported this additional information to the police. Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Master Detective Vinson Boyce investigated the allegations and interviewed each of the twins, who disclosed sexual abuse by Estien.

[6] The State charged Estien with eight counts – two counts of Level 1 felony child molesting, one count of Level 3 felony rape, one count of Level 3 felony attempted rape, two counts of Level 4 felony child molesting, and two counts of Level 4 felony incest. At the bench trial, the State presented testimony from the twins, their father, their therapist, a DCS family case manager, and Master Detective Boyce. Estien did not testify. The trial court found Estien guilty of all eight counts but merged the second count of incest into the second count of Level 1 felony child molesting.

[7] During the sentencing hearing, the trial court accepted evidence and determined Estien was a repeat sex offender ⁶ because he had been convicted of child molesting in 1992. The trial court found mitigators in Estien's advanced age and physical health challenges, his strong family support, and his apology (without acceptance of responsibility) to the victims and the trial court. The trial court found aggravators in his multiple victims, his position of trust, the significant impact on the victims, and the multiple offenses. The court sentenced Estien to an aggregate term of seventy years in the Indiana Department of Correction.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Estien argues the State did not prove his crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. We apply a well-settled standard when we review the sufficiency of the evidence to prove criminal allegations:

Sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims ․ warrant a deferential standard, in which we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility. Rather, we consider only the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence. We will affirm a conviction if there is substantial evidence of probative value that would lead a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Powell v. State, 151 N.E.3d 256, 262-63 (Ind. 2020) (internal citations omitted).

[9] Estien asks us to revisit the rule that a conviction may rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a minor. However, “we are bound by Indiana Supreme Court precedent and are not at liberty to ‘reconsider’ that precedent.” Hill v. State, 122 N.E.3d 979, 982 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. The Indiana Supreme Court has long held “[c]onvictions for child molesting may rest upon the uncorroborated testimony of the victim.” Barger v. State, 587 N.E.2d 1304, 1308 (Ind. 1992), reh'g denied.

[10] Estien notes a 2012 dissenting opinion from Judge Baker “called for a reconsideration of the current rule and the adoption of a corroboration requirement.” (Appellant's Br. at 12) (citing “Leyva v. State, 971 N.E.2d 699, 705-6 (Ind. App. 2012) (Baker, J., Dissenting)”) (emphases in original). What Estien fails to acknowledge is that Leyva petitioned for transfer, and our Indiana Supreme Court not only denied his request, all five justices concurred with that denial. Leyva v. State, 976 N.E.2d 1234 (Ind. 2012) (table). In light of the Indiana Supreme Court precedent cited above, we decline Estien's invitation to revisit that rule.⁷ See also Asselstine v. State, No. 24A-CR-2363, 2025 WL 1190459 (Ind. Ct. App. April 24, 2025) (mem.) (declining Asselstine's request to reconsider the rule that a conviction may rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a minor), trans. denied.

Conclusion

[11] We decline Estien's request that we adopt a corroboration requirement for child testimony and affirm his convictions.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a).

2.   Ind. Code § 35-42-4-1(a)(1).

3.   Ind. Code § 35-41-5-1(a); Ind. Code § 35-42-4-1(a)(1).

4.   Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(b).

5.   Ind. Code § 35-46-1-3.

6.   Ind. Code § 35-50-2-14.

7.   Estien provided no specific challenge to the evidence supporting any of his convictions. Nevertheless, having reviewed the record on appeal, we note the testimony of Estien's seventeen-year-old granddaughters about his sexual abuse of them between the ages of eight and fourteen was sufficient to support each of his convictions. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 163 N.E.3d 925, 930-31 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (holding uncorroborated testimony of a minor was sufficient to sustain child molesting conviction).

May, Judge.

Judges Mathias and Bradford concur. Mathias, J., and Bradford, J., concur.