Raul Hernandez, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Raul Hernandez was convicted after a bench trial of Class B misdemeanor battery ¹ and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.² Hernandez claims the victim's testimony was incredibly dubious and therefore insufficient to support his convictions. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] One morning in February 2022, general contractor Jamie Gemino and Hernandez, a crew leader, met at a project site. Gemino believed Hernandez was “working on his own projects with [Gemino's] material and ․ crew people” and had decided to let him go. Tr. Vol. 2 at 7. Gemino explained the situation to Hernandez and asked where his tools and equipment were. Gemino was angry because of Hernandez's conduct and described the conversation as “pretty heated.” Id. at 12. Gemino told Hernandez he would have him arrested, that he would “take his fat a** down,” and that he “better be afraid[.]” Id. at 14–15. Hernandez “got a little flustered” and told Gemino that if he wanted his “tools and ․ stuff,” he should come to Hernandez's house. Id. at 8.

[3] Gemino and one of his employees followed Hernandez to his house. Gemino dialed 9-1-1 because “something didn't seem right[,]” but he did not immediately place the call. Id. Hernandez said the tools were in the back of his van. But when they got to the van, there were no tools and “that's when Mr. Hernandez ․ turned around and just cut loose, [and] got really violent.” Id. Gemino hit send on the 9-1-1 call as Hernandez started pushing him, then swinging at him with clenched fists. Hernandez hit Gemino in the back of the head and on the shoulder. The blows “stun[ned] [Gemino] a little bit, and [he] started stumbling backwards[.]” Id. at 9. Hernandez “grabbed ahold of [Gemino's] shirt and ․ just got wailing away.” Id. at 9. Gemino ended up on the ground and “swore a lot[,]” but kept his hands at his sides. Id. at 21.

[4] Officer Kevin Cornell arrived at Hernandez's house in response to an open 9-1-1 call for an “unknown disturbance of some sort.” Id. at 25. Gemino told Officer Cornell that Hernandez “was swinging at him” and “grabbed him around the neck and pulled him to the ground.” Id. at 26. While speaking with Gemino, Officer Cornell observed “a small red abrasion on the back of his neck ․ or side of his neck.” Id. Hernandez did not provide any information about the incident because of a language barrier, but when Officer Cornell arrived, “he appeared as if he was upset, maybe out of breath, like some sort of struggle or altercation had happened.” Id. at 31. Hernandez had mud or dirt on the knees and shins of his pants, as if “he'd been on the ground at some point.” Id.

[5] The State charged Hernandez with battery and disorderly conduct, both Class B misdemeanors. Hernandez had a bench trial in August 2025. Gemino and Officer Cornell testified about the events described above. Hernandez also testified. He said Gemino owed him money for unpaid work. When they got to Hernandez's house, Gemino started taking tools from the van that belonged to Hernandez. When Hernandez pointed that out, Gemino got upset, pushed Hernandez down on the ground, and hit him in the chest twice. Hernandez did not punch or fight back. He did not tell Officer Cornell about that, though, because “at that time [he] was out of breath and ․ couldn't speak with him. And it's hard for [him] to speak in English when [he's] a little upset.” Id. at 38.

[6] The trial court found Hernandez guilty, stating:

I think, as the parties have pointed out, it's kind of a he said/he said argument. One side says, he fought me. The other side says, no, it was the other way around. The only person I've heard from today who was not a party to any of this was Mr. Cornell, ․ and the only real piece of evidence outside of what he was told is that he saw ․ mud on Mr. Hernandez's shins and pants. He saw no injuries, but he did see a red abrasion on the back of Mr. Gemino's neck.

Given that, the Court is going to find Mr. Hernandez guilty of both [counts].

Id. at 41–42. The trial court sentenced Hernandez to 180 days in the county jail, all suspended to probation.

The incredible dubiosity exception to our standard of reviewing sufficiency claims does not apply.

[7] A sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim warrants a “deferential standard of review in which we ‘neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility[.]’ ” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 570 (Ind. 2018), cert. denied). Instead, we respect the fact-finder's exclusive province to weigh conflicting evidence, Phipps v. State, 90 N.E.3d 1190, 1195 (Ind. 2018), and consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the judgment of the trier of fact, Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1191 (Ind. 2021). We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Teising v. State, 226 N.E.3d 780, 783 (Ind. 2024). It is “not necessary that the evidence ‘overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.’ ” Sallee v. State, 51 N.E.3d 130, 133 (Ind. 2016) (quoting Moore v. State, 652 N.E.2d 53, 55 (Ind. 1995)).

[8] Generally, the uncorroborated testimony of the victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012). We recognize an exception, however, when that testimony is incredibly dubious. The incredible dubiosity exception allows the reviewing court to reassess the factfinder's credibility determination when confronted with evidence that is “so unbelievable, incredible, or improbable that no reasonable person could ever reach a guilty verdict based upon that evidence alone.” Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 751 (Ind. 2015). This is a “difficult standard to meet,” and the testimony “must be so convoluted and/or contrary to human experience that no reasonable person could believe it.” Id. at 756 (quoting Edwards v. State, 753 N.E.2d 618, 622 (Ind. 2001)).

[9] We apply the exception where there is: “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. Each of these three factors must be satisfied, so failure to satisfy any one of them will preclude application of the incredible dubiosity exception. See id. at 758.

[10] Hernandez makes an argument for each of the three factors, but we conclude he has failed to show Gemino's testimony is inherently contradictory, equivocal, or the result of coercion. Therefore, we need not address the other two factors because the incredible dubiosity exception does not apply here.³

[11] Hernandez directs our attention to several facts Gemino revealed on cross-examination “that were conveniently omitted on direct examination[.]” Appellant's Br. at 10. Although Gemino testified to additional facts of the encounter on cross-examination, none of the testimony elicited on cross-examination contradicts Gemino's direct examination testimony. For instance, Gemino testified on cross-examination that when Hernandez opened the van doors, he took out a 2x4 and “plunged” at him with it. Tr. Vol. 2 at 18. But this merely adds to his testimony on direct examination; it does not contradict it. Hernandez argues Gemino's testimony that he put his hands at his sides when Hernandez was hitting him “is not a logical response[,]” Appellant's Br. at 10, but it is not so unbelievable or improbable that no reasonable person could believe it.

[12] Gemino's testimony at the bench trial was not inherently contradictory or equivocal. Hernandez has not made an argument that the testimony was the result of coercion, and nothing about Gemino's account runs counter to human experience. To the contrary, Gemino's testimony regarding the facts of the crimes—that Hernandez became violent, hit him repeatedly, and threw him to the ground—was consistent.

[13] Hernandez also argues that Gemino's admission that he has been convicted of a violent crime, his threats to Hernandez, and his gratuitous comments about Hernandez's character are proof his “inconsistencies and half-truths are more nefarious than honest mistakes.” Id. at 11. Because Gemino's testimony was not incredibly dubious, we reject Hernandez's request that we reweigh it in light of Gemino's prior conviction, threatening remarks, and critical comments about Hernandez. Rather, weighing this evidence and determining whom to believe was a task for the trial court as the finder of fact in this bench trial. The trial court acknowledged the case was a credibility contest but found Gemino's testimony coupled with Officer Cornell's observation of a red abrasion on Gemino's neck proved the charges against Hernandez. Tr. Vol. 2 at 41.

Conclusion

[14] The incredible dubiosity exception does not apply in this case, and the State's evidence was sufficient to support Hernandez's convictions.

[15] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c)(1) (2020).

2.   I.C. § 35-45-1-3(a)(1) (2014).

3.   Hernandez also fails to show an absence of circumstantial evidence. Officer Cornell's observation of a red abrasion on Gemino's neck independently precludes application of the exception.

Kenworthy, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Pyle, J., concur.