CLICK v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Ryan Tyler Click appeals his convictions for child molesting as a level 1 felony, child molesting as a level 4 felony, and performing sexual conduct in the presence of a minor as a level 6 felony. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] When L.H. was four years old, she lived in an apartment with her mother, Tiara, and her mother's then boyfriend, Click, as well as Click's older son. On one occasion when L.H. was in her bedroom, Click called her out to the living room and “told [her] to suck his dick.” Transcript Volume II at 35. L.H. followed that instruction and put her mouth on Click's penis. She knew what to do with her mouth because Click had showed her a video of “a boy and a girl” and the girl in the video was “doing the same thing ․ she was sucking on the boy's dick.” Id. at 36. While showing L.H. the video, Click commented that the “girl was pretty.” Id.

[3] When L.H. was “six (6) or seven (7),” Click told her to “rub his penis.” Id. at 37. He “show[ed] her what to do” by grabbing her hands and telling her “to go up and down.” Id. This happened on approximately three occasions, “mostly at [Click's] house” in his bedroom and “once at [Tiara's] house.” Id. at 38. On one of the occasions when L.H. was at Click's house and Tiara was at work, he woke L.H. as she slept on the couch and “pulled [her] to his room” to “rub his penis.” Id. On another occasion, Click “[p]eed” in his tank top “right after” L.H. had been “massaging his penis.” Id. at 39. Click told L.H. “not to tell people” about what was happening. Id. at 38.

[4] When L.H. was six or seven years old and still in first grade, she brought a “squishy banana, like a stress toy type thing” to school and was using it “orally” in a “sexual” way in front of two other little girls in the bathroom. Id. at 73. After learning about this concerning conduct from the school principal, Tiara took L.H. to a child advocacy center for an interview, but “nothing” came of it. Id. at 68. At some point later, both Tiara and L.H.’s great-grandmother began noticing that L.H. started “throw[ing] fits about going” to Click's house and “not want[ing] to hang around” him. Id.

[5] When L.H. was nine years old, she told her cousin about what had been happening with Click. The girls decided that L.H. should tell their great-grandmother about the abuse. L.H. told her great-grandmother about Click's conduct but told her, “You can't tell mom.” Id. at 83. L.H.’s great-grandmother immediately texted Tiara and told her to talk to L.H. about “something L.H.” had disclosed. Id. at 56. When Tiara asked L.H. what her great-grandmother “might be talking about,” L.H. “started panicking and crying and ․ said ․ she wasn't supposed to tell [Tiara], and she didn't want [her] to know.” Id. at 56-57. L.H. “wrote it down on a sticky note” that Click “had made her suck his penis.” Id. at 57. Tiara tried to “stay calm” but texted Click about the allegation. Id. Click denied abusing L.H. but made up various excuses for why she might know about oral sex including that he had explained the difference between boys and girls to her one time after he showered while babysitting for her, and also claiming that L.H. had come into his room multiple times while he was dressing and had also perhaps witnessed Tiara performing oral sex on him. Tiara reported L.H.’s allegations to the police and took L.H. to the hospital and the child advocacy center. At the hospital and at the child advocacy center, L.H. disclosed that Click had engaged in sexual acts with her.

[6] On May 2, 2024, the State charged Click with child molesting as a level 1 felony, child molesting as a level 4 felony, child exploitation as a level 4 felony, possession of child pornography as a level 5 felony, and performing sexual conduct in the presence of a minor as a level 6 felony. A jury trial began on October 27, 2025. At the outset of trial, the State dismissed the charges of child exploitation and possession of child pornography. The State presented the testimony of then ten-year-old L.H., Tiara, the forensic nurse from the hospital who examined L.H., and the forensic interviewer from the child advocacy center who interviewed L.H. Click testified on his own behalf. At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Click guilty of both child molesting counts and performing sexual conduct in the presence of a minor. On January 6, 2026, the trial court sentenced Click to fifty years with ten years suspended to probation.

Discussion

[7] Click challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. When reviewing claims of insufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Jordan v. State, 656 N.E.2d 816, 817 (Ind. 1995), reh'g denied. We look to the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom that support the verdict. Id. The conviction will be affirmed if there exists evidence of probative value from which a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[8] Click concedes that L.H. testified that he engaged in sexual behavior with her that meets the elements of Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a) and (b) (child molesting as a level 1 felony and child molesting as a level 4 felony) and Ind. Code § 35-42-4-5(c)(3) (performing sexual conduct in the presence of a minor as a level 6 felony). He further concedes that generally the uncorroborated testimony of the victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Appellant's Brief at 11 (citing Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012)). Nevertheless, Click asserts that reversal of the jury verdict is warranted based upon the incredible dubiosity rule. The Indiana Supreme Court has explained that, in extraordinarily rare circumstances, “[a]ppellate courts may impinge upon a jury's function to judge the credibility of a witness ․ by applying the ‘incredible dubiosity’ rule.” Smith v. State, 34 N.E.3d 1211, 1221 (Ind. 2015) (citing Fajardo v. State, 859 N.E.2d 1201, 1208 (Ind. 2007)). “Application of the incredible dubiosity rule is limited to cases with very specific circumstances because we are extremely hesitant to invade the province of the jury.” Id. “[T]o warrant application of the incredible dubiosity rule, there must be: ‘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. (quoting Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 756 (Ind. 2015)).

[9] As to the first prong of the rule, we agree with Click that L.H. was “the sole testifying witness as to what happened.” Appellant's Brief at 13. Click concentrates his argument on the second prong of the rule and urges that there “is evidence of coercion of L.H.’s testimony.” Id. Specifically, he points to evidence that he and Tiara had a rocky relationship and that L.H.’s disclosures occurred during a time when the former couple were in the midst of a paternity action as well as issues surrounding child support and visitation following the birth of their son.

[10] Be that as it may, there is no evidence that Tiara coerced L.H.’s testimony. There is no evidence that nine-year-old L.H. knew of the paternity action and the evidence indicates that L.H. did not want her mother to know about the sexual abuse. The record reveals that she was panicked and upset when she learned her great-grandmother had betrayed her wishes to keep the secret from Tiara. The evidence presented does not support a reasonable inference that L.H.’s testimony was the result of coercion.

[11] Moreover, as to the third prong of the rule, we cannot say that there was a complete lack of circumstantial evidence supporting L.H.’s assertions. Tiara testified that, during the alleged period of abuse, there was a troubling incident at school involving L.H. with age-inappropriate sexual undertones. Tiara also testified regarding L.H.’s sudden and inexplicable reluctance to spend time with Click. In addition, the record reveals that L.H. told consistent accounts of the abuse to her great-grandmother, mother, forensic nurse, and forensic interviewer. Tiara testified that when she confronted Click about the abuse, although he denied molesting L.H., he made several admissions to troubling behavior such as teaching L.H. the difference between boys and girls after he exited the shower and admitting that L.H. had seen him naked multiple times. Under the circumstances, we cannot say that there was a complete absence of circumstantial evidence supporting L.H.’s assertions. As Click has failed to satisfy both the second and third prongs of the incredible dubiosity rule, his sufficiency argument fails.

[12] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Click's convictions.

[13] Affirmed.

Brown, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Weissmann, J., concur