R.L., Appellant-Respondent v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] R.L. appeals her adjudication as delinquent for committing an act which if committed by an adult would constitute child molesting as a level 4 felony. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] R.L. was born in October 2011. In May 2025, R.L. lived with her aunt and her aunt's son, E.L., who was born in January 2018. On May 18, 2025, R.L. woke up E.L. and took him from his bed to her room in the basement. E.L. played video games. R.L. rubbed E.L.’s stomach. R.L. then touched E.L.’s penis under his clothes. R.L. also “made [E.L.] touch her butt.” Transcript Volume II at 12. In the morning while he was preparing for school, E.L. told his mother what happened.

[3] The State filed a petition alleging R.L. committed acts which would constitute child molesting as a level 4 felony if committed by an adult.¹ In June 2025, the trial court held a hearing. E.L. testified, “First [R.L.] gave me a [ ] belly rub.” Id. He also stated, “[she] made me touch her butt.” Id. When asked, “[h]ow'd that make you feel,” he replied, “[a] little bit bad.” Id. He testified that R.L. “touched my private,” and, when asked “[d]o you know the word for it,” he answered, “Penis.” Id. The transcript reveals that E.L. was asked to use a marker to identify on a picture of a boy where R.L. touched him.

[4] On cross-examination, when asked, “you mentioned ․ that [R.L.] gave you a belly rub,” E.L. replied, “Yes.” Id. at 17. R.L.’s counsel asked, “[i]s that something she would do sometimes. Was that the only time she's ever given you a belly rub,” and E.L. answered, “Yes.” Id. When asked, “[d]o you like belly rubs,” he replied, “[n]ot very often.” Id. at 17-18. When asked, “[d]id it tickle when she gave you a belly rub,” he answered, “No,” and when asked, “[d]id you have a belly ache when she gave you a belly rub,” he again replied, “No.” Id. at 18. R.L.’s counsel asked, “did she rub your belly and then remove her hands from your body or did she keep her hands on your body and then touch your penis,” E.L. answered, “Still touching.” Id. When asked, “she rubbed your belly and kept her hands on your body, right,” E.L. replied affirmatively, and when asked, “[a]nd then she touched your penis,” he answered, “Yes.” Id. at 18-19. On redirect examination, when asked, “[h]ow long did [R.L.] touch your penis for,” E.L. stated, “One second,” and when asked, “[w]as it over your clothes,” he responded, “It was under.” Id. at 19.

[5] In closing argument, the prosecutor argued the “intent to arouse ․ prong has been met,” “is there any other reasonable reason for [R.L.] to have been touching [E.L.’s] penis,” “the answer is no,” and “[s]he carried him out of his bed. She took him downstairs in the middle of the night, she got him playing video games, she rubbed his belly, which he didn't like and then she slid her hand under his underwear and touched his penis.” Id. at 20. R.L.’s counsel argued, “all the [S]tate has demonstrated today [is] that [E.L.] says that she touched his penis for one second,” “[t]hat's not fondling,” “[w]e don't know what her hand was doing,” “[w]e don't know if it was an accidental [sic],” and “[t]here was no information provided about whether [R.L.] said anything, whether there was any intent given with what she [sic] that we could infer based on what she said or what she asked him to do if anything.” Id. at 21.

[6] The court found that R.L. was delinquent for the alleged act of child molesting. The court entered a dispositional decree placing R.L. on probation and ordering her to follow a safety plan and engage in behavior treatment.

Discussion

[7] R.L. asserts that the evidence is insufficient to establish that she acted with the intent to arouse E.L. or herself. She argues that “[t]he touching of E.L.’s penis lasted ‘one second’ ” and “[t]he circumstances of R.L. making E.L. touch her butt are unclear.” Appellant's Brief at 9 (quoting Transcript Volume II at 19). She also argues that she did not discuss sexual acts with E.L., display pornography to him, or threaten him.

[8] “In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in a juvenile adjudication, ‘we neither re-weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Rather, we look only to the evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment and to the reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence.’ ” K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 543 (Ind. 2006) (quoting Vance v. State, 640 N.E.2d 51, 57 (Ind. 1994)). We affirm if there is substantial probative evidence to support the conclusion. Id.

[9] Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(b), at the time of the act, provided that “[a] person who, with a child under fourteen (14) years of age, performs or submits to any fondling or touching, of either the child or the older person, with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the older person, commits child molesting, a Level 4 felony.”²

[10] “Mere touching alone is not sufficient to constitute the crime of child molesting.” Bowles v. State, 737 N.E.2d 1150, 1152 (Ind. 2000) (citing Clark v. State, 695 N.E.2d 999, 1002 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), reh'g denied, trans. denied; Nuerge v. State, 677 N.E.2d 1043, 1048 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), trans. denied). “The State must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the act of touching was accompanied by the specific intent to arouse or satisfy sexual desires.” Id. (citing Clark, 695 N.E.2d at 1002). “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.” Id. This Court has held that “[t]he purpose of the child molestation statute ‘is to prohibit the sexual exploitation of children by those with superior knowledge or experience who are therefore in a position to take advantage of children's naivety.’ ” T.G. v. State, 3 N.E.3d 19, 25 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting C.D.H. v. State, 860 N.E.2d 608, 612 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied), trans. denied. We have also stated that “ ‘age differential is an important factor that may and should be considered’ when determining a minor's criminal liability under a statute proscribing lewd or lascivious conduct with a child.” Id. (quoting C.D.H., 860 N.E.2d at 612 (quoting In re P.M., 156 Vt. 303, 592 A.2d 862, 864 (1991))).

[11] The record reveals that R.L., who was thirteen years old in May 2025, was more than six years older than E.L., who was seven years old at the time. On May 18, R.L. woke up E.L., took him to her room in the basement, “gave [him] a [ ] belly rub,” touched his penis under his clothes, and “made [him] touch her butt.” Transcript Volume II at 12. E.L. was thoroughly examined and cross-examined regarding his recollection of R.L.’s acts. Based upon the record, and mindful of our standard of review, we conclude that the State presented evidence of a probative nature from which a reasonable trier of fact could find that R.L. committed an act which would constitute child molesting as a level 4 felony if committed by an adult.³

[12] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's delinquency adjudication.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The petition also alleged that R.L. committed acts which would constitute attempted child molesting involving another child as a level 4 felony if committed by an adult. The State later dismissed the allegation of attempted child molesting.

2.   Subsequently amended by Pub. L. No. 186-2025, § 235 (eff. July 1, 2025).

3.   To the extent J.M. cites D.P. v. State, 80 N.E.3d 913 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), we find the case distinguishable. D.P. was ten years old and touched four-year-old B.M. during one incident. 80 N.E.3d at 916. “That touching involved D.P. touching B.M.’s ‘hooha’ and her ‘butt’ with his ‘hand’ while her clothes were on.” Id. “Although B.M. identified her ‘hooha’ as her genital area on an anatomical drawing of a little girl by drawing a circle, there was no evidence of exactly where D.P. touched B.M., how he touched her (for example, touching or rubbing), or how long he touched her.” Id. (citation and footnote omitted). “Moreover, B.M. did not feel the touching.” Id.

Brown, Judge.

Altice, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.