G.C., Appellant-Defendant v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] G.C. appeals his juvenile adjudication for committing what would be Level 3 felony child molesting and Level 4 felony child molesting if committed by an adult, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support it. The evidence most favorable to the adjudication shows that when G.C. was 16 years old, he and 12-year-old C.S. (“the victim”) lived in the same foster home, and they engaged in several sexual acts, including touching each other's penises and performing oral and anal sex. The victim eventually disclosed the incidents to an Indiana Department of Child Services family case manager (FCM) and then underwent a forensic interview at a child advocacy center. Thereafter, the State filed a delinquency petition against G.C.

[2] At the fact-finding hearing, the victim testified about the sex acts that he and G.C. engaged in. The FCM testified that the victim's disclosure to her was consistent with the disclosure he made during the forensic interview. She also testified that at some point, law enforcement told her that the victim may have recanted, so she spoke to him again. The victim told the FCM that “he was told he was a liar,” that “he was told to state that he lied about it,” and that “he did tell somebody that he lied about it.” Tr. p. 31. However, the FCM said that the victim still made the same disclosure as before. The trial court adjudicated G.C. a juvenile delinquent for committing what would be Level 3 felony child molesting and Level 4 felony child molesting if committed by an adult. Following a dispositional hearing, the court placed G.C. on probation.

[3] G.C. contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his juvenile adjudication. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence for a juvenile adjudication, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses and look only to the evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment. A.W. v. State, 229 N.E.3d 1060, 1064 (Ind. 2024). G.C. acknowledges the victim's testimony at the fact-finding hearing that they touched each other's penises and engaged in oral and anal sex but claims that the victim had “little credibility.” Appellant's Br. p. 12. G.C. also claims that the foster parents were often home and that he and the victim didn't like each other, which made it “unlikely that the two would engage in any sort of sexual conduct with each other.” Id. But as the State correctly points out, these are merely requests for us to reweigh the evidence, which we don't do. Accordingly, we affirm G.C.’s juvenile adjudication.

[4] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.