Charlie Buchanan, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Charlie Buchanan (“Buchanan”) appeals, following a bench trial, his convictions for Level 1 felony child molesting ¹ and Class A misdemeanor intimidation.² Buchanan argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. Concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support Buchanan's convictions, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether there is sufficient evidence to support Buchanan's convictions.

Facts

[3] Buchanan has a nephew, D.B. (“D.B.”), who was born in August 2015. From the time D.B. was born until the time he was around six or seven years old, D.B. frequently stayed the night with his paternal grandparents (“paternal grandparents”), who were Buchanan's parents.

[4] In November 2019, Buchanan was shot in the face and spent time in the hospital and then at a rehabilitation facility. Thereafter, in February 2020, Buchanan, who was using a walker, moved into his parents’ house so that they could help care for him. At that time, Buchanan was twenty-nine years old.

[5] One day thereafter, when D.B. was at paternal grandparents’ house, they left D.B. alone with Buchanan. D.B. was sitting on a couch in the front room and watching funny YouTube videos on a television, and Buchanan came in the room and started watching the videos with D.B. Buchanan said he wanted D.B. to pull D.B.’s pants down, and D.B. ran away from Buchanan. Buchanan then told D.B. that if he did not come back, then Buchanan was “going to whoop” D.B. with a belt. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 40). D.B. returned to the front room, and Buchanan pulled his own pants down and told D.B. that he wanted D.B. “to suck his private” or his penis. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 43). After D.B. refused, Buchanan “threatened [D.B.] with a belt.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 43). Buchanan then made D.B. suck his penis. D.B. thought that it “tasted nasty” and that “that thing smelled like rotten eggs. Baked beans. Smelled like it came out [of] the toilet. Smelled like it came out [of] a trash can.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 44). D.B. then washed his mouth out with soap and water.

[6] Thereafter, in September 2023, D.B. was a second grader in an alternative school program that had small classroom sizes and was assigned to a classroom with five students. D.B.’s classroom was staffed by a teacher, a classroom assistant, and a classroom therapist. Sheila Mays, who was a licensed clinical social worker and certified school social worker, was the classroom therapist in D.B.’s classroom (“the classroom therapist”). The classroom therapist held daily group sessions with D.B. and the other students, weekly individual sessions with D.B., and monthly sessions with D.B., D.B.’s mother (“D.B.’s mother”), and the school psychiatrist.

[7] During that time period, D.B. was having behavioral issues regarding personal space “that were concerning” and involved “things of a sexual nature.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 19). For example, D.B. would stand very close to the student in front of him in the line and then rub his genitals on that student. D.B. also “would sit on his chair and rub against his chair in a sexual way.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 18-19). “A couple of times, when the door was open, [D.B.] would hold on to both doorknobs and rub his genitals against the side of the door.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 19). Additionally, around September 2023, D.B. pulled down his pants during recess.

[8] Thereafter, the classroom therapist had an individual meeting with D.B. to address these personal boundary issues. The classroom therapist told D.B. the following: “[Y]our body belongs to you ․ [Y]our body that's covered by your bathing suit is private. No one should touch you. You should not touch others. We don't show that to others.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 20). D.B. “suddenly burst into tears” and “cr[ied] very, very hard.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 20). D.B. “became so upset that he put his head down on top of [the classroom therapist's] knee” and “began talking.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 20). D.B. disclosed what Buchanan, who he called “Uncle CJ[,]” had done. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 21). Specifically, D.B. “told [the classroom therapist] that [his] uncle [had] tried to have sex with [him].” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 46). The classroom therapist filed a report with Child Protective Services and notified D.B.’s mother.

[9] When D.B.’s mother talked to D.B., he told her that Buchanan had “[s]exual[ly] abuse[d]” him. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 71). D.B.’s mother then told paternal grandparents what D.B. had disclosed about Buchanan. Paternal grandparents then went to talk to D.B. while he was at his maternal grandmother's (“maternal grandmother”) house. D.B. was initially happy to see paternal grandparents until he realized why they were there. Paternal grandparents repeatedly questioned D.B. about what had happened. Specifically, they asked D.B. five or six times what had happened, and each time he told them what Buchanan had done. When paternal grandparents continued to question D.B. three or four more times, he then changed his answer and told them that nothing had happened.

[10] Subsequently, in November 2023, D.B. was interviewed by a forensic interviewer (“the forensic interviewer”). At the time of D.B.’s forensic interview (“the forensic interview”), he was eight years old. During the forensic interview, D.B. disclosed what Buchanan, who he identified as his “Big Uncle Charlie[,]” had done to him. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 88).

[11] A detective with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“the detective”) reviewed D.B.’s forensic interview and interviewed the classroom therapist, D.B.’s mother, and other family members. Because “[t]his was a delayed disclosure,” there was “no physical evidence” that the detective could collect. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 105).

[12] The State charged Buchanan with Level 1 felony child molesting and Class A misdemeanor intimidation. The trial court held a bench trial in September 2025. The State presented testimony from D.B., D.B.’s mother, D.B.’s maternal grandmother, the classroom therapist, the forensic interviewer, and the detective, and they testified to the facts as set forth above.

[13] On the morning of the trial and before D.B.’s testimony, the State had D.B. review the video of the forensic interview. The video was not offered or admitted as an exhibit at trial. During opening statements, the State told the trial court that it would hear testimony from D.B., who was “a spirited 10-year-old boy who w[ould] move around a lot and w[ould] probably have trouble sitting still in his seat and focusing.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 13). The State then told the trial court that, nevertheless, D.B. would tell the court what Buchanan had done to him.

[14] When D.B. took the witness stand, the trial court preliminarily questioned D.B. about whether he knew the difference between the truth and a lie. While D.B. testified, he had a toy dinosaur with him. When the State asked D.B. whether there were places on his body that no one should touch, he responded, “Yes.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 36). The State then gave D.B. an anatomical diagram of a male figure and asked D.B. to circle those prohibited body parts. D.B. circled “[a] private[,] which he affirmed was “the part that you would pee out of” or a penis. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 37). D.B. also circled “[a] butt” and “[a] mouth.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 37).

[15] When the State asked D.B. if anything had happened to either his or Buchanan's private area, D.B. affirmed that something had happened, and he then mentioned “the video.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 38). The State then had D.B. confirm to the trial court that he had watched the forensic interview video and that he had told the forensic interviewer what Buchanan had done. Thereafter, D.B. testified that something had happened with Buchanan's private area. When the State asked D.B. what had happened, D.B. asked if he should “[s]ay the stuff from the video[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 39). The State directed him to just “say what happened.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 39).

[16] D.B. then recounted the details regarding Buchanan's offenses. At one point, when D.B. was explaining how Buchanan had started watching funny videos with him, D.B. asked if he could “rewind the video[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 39-40). After the State instructed D.B. to “talk about what [he] remember[ed] happened[,]” D.B. testified that Buchanan had wanted D.B. to pull D.B.’s pants down, D.B. had ran away from Buchanan, Buchanan had threatened to “whoop” D.B. with a belt, and D.B. had returned to the front room. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 40). During D.B.’s testimony about how Buchanan pulled his pants down and made D.B. perform oral sex on him, D.B. twice stopped his testimony, telling the trial court, “I need to spit” and “God, I have to spit again.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 41, 43). After D.B. testified how he had washed his mouth out with soap after the oral sex, he specifically noted that he had not told that information to the forensic interviewer, and he clarified that it was a detail that he recalled while on the witness stand.

[17] During Buchanan's cross-examination of D.B., he asked D.B. about the fact that he had watched the forensic interview video prior to testifying. Buchanan noted that D.B. had mentioned the video while testifying and asked whether D.B. had “remember[ed] that stuff before [he had] watched the video today or was it the video that kind of reminded [him] of everything?” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 50). D.B. responded, “I remember that stuff when I was watching the video now.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 50).

[18] Buchanan then asked D.B. multiple questions about some of his statements made during the forensic interview. For example, Buchanan asked if he recalled telling the forensic interviewer that she had been with D.B. and his friends on the day of the interview, and D.B. stated that he did not remember that statement. Buchanan also asked D.B. if he remembered why he had gone to talk to the forensic interviewer, and D.B. replied that he did not. Buchanan then asked the trial court if he could play a part of the forensic interview video to “refresh[ ] [D.B.’s] recollection[,]” and the trial court allowed Buchanan to do so. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 52). Buchanan then played an excerpt of the video, in which D.B. had told the forensic interviewer that he was at the forensic interview because his parents had tricked or “sabotaged” him to show up and in which he confirmed to the forensic interviewer that no one had told him what to say or not to say during the interview. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 53).³ Thereafter, Buchanan cross-examined D.B. about his forensic interview statement that his parents had sabotaged him to go to the interview, and D.B. stated that he had then told the forensic interviewer that he had not been sabotaged and that he “[had been] joking[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 54). Buchanan continued his cross-examination questions about D.B.’s forensic interview statements and then asked D.B. if he remembered that he had told the forensic interviewer that Buchanan had “tried to have sex with [D.B.] more than once[,]” and D.B. replied, “No. He only had sex with me one time.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 55). Then, Buchanan asked D.B. if he remembered telling the forensic interviewer that Buchanan had asked D.B. “to suck his butt[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 55). D.B. pointed out that the video showed that he had told the forensic interviewer that he “was joking” and that Buchanan “did not want [D.B.] to suck his butt.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 56). D.B. told Buchanan, “If you rewind the video, you'll hear I'm joking.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 56).

[19] Thereafter, Buchanan cross-examined D.B. about his trial testimony concerning the offenses at issue. Specifically, Buchanan asked D.B. for details of what had occurred, and D.B. testified that after Buchanan had come into the room to watch YouTube videos with D.B., D.B. ran because Buchanan “wanted to have sex with [him,]” and that Buchanan had “threatened [D.B.] with a belt.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 57). Additionally, D.B. confirmed that he then went back into the front room where Buchanan told him to “suck his private” and that D.B., thereafter, washed out his mouth. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 58).

[20] The State presented maternal grandmother as a witness, and Buchanan presented paternal grandparents as witnesses, and these witnesses testified about the day that paternal grandparents went to maternal grandmother's house to question D.B. about his allegations against Buchanan. They all testified about their own recollections of what had happened that day, and each party had cross-examined these witnesses on their testimony.

[21] The trial court found Buchanan guilty as charged. For Buchanan's two convictions, the trial court imposed an aggregate twenty-five (25) year sentence with twenty (20) years executed and five (5) years suspended.

[22] Buchanan now appeals.

Decision

[23] Buchanan argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his Level 1 felony child molesting conviction and his Class A misdemeanor intimidation convictions. We disagree.

[24] “Sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims trigger a deferential standard of review in which we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility, instead reserving those matters to the province of the jury.” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024) (cleaned up). “A conviction is supported by sufficient evidence if there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (cleaned up). “In conducting that review, we consider only the evidence that supports the jury's determination, not evidence that might undermine it.” Id.

[25] To convict Buchanan of Level 1 felony child molesting, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Buchanan, who was at least twenty-one years old, knowingly or intentionally performed or submitted to other sexual conduct with D.B. See I.C. § 35-42-4-3(a)(1). Other sexual conduct is defined, in part, as “an act involving ․ a sex organ of one ․ person and the mouth ․ of another person[.]” I.C. § 35-31.5-2-221.5(1). To convict Buchanan of Class A misdemeanor intimidation, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Buchanan communicated a threat to D.B. with the intent that D.B. engage in conduct against his will. See I.C. § 35-45-2-1(a)(1).

[26] Buchanan does not challenge any specific element of his convictions. Instead, Buchanan invokes the incredible dubiosity rule and asserts that D.B.’s testimony was inherently contradictory and equivocal.

[27] Application of the incredible dubiosity rule is “rare” and requires a reviewing court to determine “whether the testimony is so incredibly dubious or inherently improbable that no reasonable person could believe it.” Love v. State, 761 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind. 2002). The rule is applied in limited circumstances and requires that there 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. Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 756 (Ind. 2015). “[W]hile [the] incredible dubiosity [rule] provides a standard that is ‘not impossible’ to meet, it is a ‘difficult standard to meet, [and] one that requires great ambiguity and inconsistency in the evidence.’ ” Id. (quoting Edwards v. State, 753 N.E.2d 618, 622 (Ind. 2001)). Application of this rule “is limited to cases with very specific circumstances because we are extremely hesitant to invade the province of the [trier of fact].” Smith v. State, 34 N.E.3d 1211, 1221 (Ind. 2015).

[28] Here, however, the incredible dubiosity rule is not applicable. Although D.B. was not the sole testifying witness, his testimony was critical to establishing the elements of Buchanan's two offenses, while the remaining witnesses’ testimony would not have established the necessary legal factual basis of the offenses. See id. at 1221-22 (noting that although multiple witnesses testified, without the allegedly incredibly dubious testimony of the one witness, the remaining witnesses’ testimony would have been insufficient to establish a legal factual basis for the jury to even consider); Smith v. State, 163 N.E.3d 925, 929 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (explaining that while the child victim's testimony was not the sole trial testimony, her testimony was “critical to the [S]tate's case-in-chief” and established the elements of the child molesting offense).

[29] Nevertheless, D.B.’s testimony was not inherently contradictory or equivocal. D.B. did not waiver in his testimony regarding the facts of the child molesting and intimidation offenses and testified during direct and cross-examination that Buchanan had made D.B. perform oral sex on him and had threatened to beat D.B. with a belt when he had refused.

[30] Although Buchanan argues that D.B.’s trial testimony was contradictory or equivocal when compared to or because of his forensic interview, we conclude that this argument is without merit. Our Indiana Supreme Court has explained that the inherently contradictory factor is “satisfied only when the witness's trial testimony was inconsistent within itself, not that it was inconsistent with other evidence or prior testimony.” Smith, 34 N.E.3d at 1221. Buchanan essentially suggests that we should disregard our supreme court's holding and compare D.B.’s trial testimony to his forensic interview, and he cites to our Court's opinion in C.S. v. State, 71 N.E.3d 848 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) in support of his argument. We decline to do so because we are bound by decisions of our supreme court. See Graff v. State, 250 N.E.3d 497, 504 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025).

[31] Moreover, the facts of this case are distinguishable from C.S. In C.S., the child victim had a forensic interview (“the victim's forensic interview”) when she was four years old and disclosed that her nine-year-old stepbrother had put his penis into her vagina when she was three years old. Prior to trial, the State held a hearing under the protected persons statute (“the protected persons hearing”) to determine if the victim's forensic interview was admissible at trial in lieu of her live testimony. After the trial court ruled that the victim's forensic interview was admissible under the protected persons statute, the State admitted it at trial as substantive evidence. At trial, the parties also agreed to incorporate into evidence the testimony from the protected persons hearing. On appeal, our Court reviewed whether the victim's forensic interview and her protected persons hearing testimony were incredibly dubious.

[32] Unlike C.S., here, the forensic interview was not admitted into evidence at Buchanan's bench trial, and D.B. provided live trial testimony and was available for cross-examination on any alleged inconsistencies between his pretrial statements and his trial testimony. Indeed, Buchanan cross-examined D.B. about his pretrial statements in an effort to impeach his credibility. Therefore, we decline Buchanan's invitation to compare D.B.’s pretrial statements to his trial testimony as part of our review of the incredible dubiosity issue. See Smith, 34 N.E.3d at 1221 (explaining that the inherently contradictory factor of incredible dubiosity is satisfied only when the witness's trial testimony was inconsistent within itself, not that it was inconsistent with other evidence or prior testimony).

[33] Lastly, turning to the circumstantial evidence factor, we agree with Buchanan that “there was no physical or medical evidence.” (Buchanan's Br. 18). However, our Court has explained that other trial testimony relating to the victim's disclosure of the offense may be used to corroborate the victim's testimony regarding the defendant's offense. See Morris v. State, 114 N.E.3d 531, 536 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (finding corroborating circumstantial evidence where the victim's parent testified that the victim was “distraught” after the incident and just before she disclosed the defendant's public indecency offense and where the detective testified that the victim had told him that the defendant had exposed himself to her), trans. denied. Moreover, our Indiana Supreme Court has explained that, when our appellate courts consider whether there was circumstantial evidence, it is “not require[d] [for] such circumstantial evidence to independently establish guilt.” Smith, 34 N.E.3d at 1221. Here, the classroom therapist testified that when she was discussing personal boundary and body safety issues with D.B., he “suddenly burst into tears[,]” “became so upset[,]” “cr[ied] very, very hard[,]” and then disclosed that Buchanan had “tried to have sex with [him].” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 20, 47). Additionally, D.B. told the forensic interviewer what Buchanan had done.

[34] “Even absent any corroborating evidence of [D.B.’s] testimony, however, it is well settled that the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness can be sufficient to sustain a conviction on appeal[.]” See Morris, 114 N.E.3d at 536 (citing Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012)). See also Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230, 1238 (Ind. 2012) (“The testimony of a sole child witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction for molestation.”), reh'g denied. Thus, D.B.’s testimony alone is sufficient to sustain Buchanan's convictions. See id.; Morris, 114 N.E.3d at 536. See also Smith, 163 N.E.3d at 930 (explaining that a child molesting offense “seldom leaves outward physical scars that can be corroborated by medical testimony and is seldom committed in the presence of eye-witnesses” and holding that a conviction for such an offense can be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim).

[35] Buchanan's challenge to the evidence supporting his convictions is ultimately nothing more than an invitation to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses, which we will not do. See Hancz-Barron, 235 N.E.3d at 1244. Because there was probative evidence from which the trial court, as finder of fact, could have found that Buchanan committed Level 1 felony child molesting and Class A misdemeanor intimidation, we affirm his convictions. See, e.g., Hampton v. State, 921 N.E.2d 27, 29 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (holding that the testimony of the seven-year-old victim was not incredibly dubious and affirming the defendant's child molesting conviction), reh'g denied, trans. denied.⁴

[36] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3.

2.   I.C. § 35-45-2-1.

3.   The conversation from this video excerpt was transcribed in the transcript.

4.   Buchanan also argues, in part, that D.B.’s trial testimony was incredibly dubious because: (1) D.B. watched the forensic interview video on the morning of trial, and his testimony may not have been from his memory or a refreshed recollection; (2) D.B. made “false statements” during his forensic interview and was “confused” by what act of molestation Buchanan had done; and (3) D.B.’s forensic interview statements regarding the allegations against Buchanan could have been coerced because D.B. had previously spoken to the classroom therapist, his mother, and the grandparents, and “[n]o professional ever assessed what these adults said to [D.B.] or how their questioning shaped his account.” (Buchanan's Br. 15-16, 26). Buchanan's arguments are essentially a credibility challenge. At trial, Buchanan did not object to the nature or foundation of D.B.’s testimony, and Buchanan cross-examined D.B. on whether the video had affected his recollection for his testimony and on his statements made during the forensic interview. Additionally, Buchanan had the opportunity to cross-examine the adults about whether their interactions with D.B. could have influenced his forensic interview statements. Moreover, Buchanan's suggestion that a professional should have assessed whether there had been any influence by the adults does not fall under the incredible dubiosity analysis and seems to be more a comment on trial counsel's defense strategy. Buchanan made his credibility arguments to the trial court, which then weighed the evidence and judged the witnesses’ credibility, and we will not reweigh those determinations. See Hancz-Barron, 235 N.E.3d at 1244.

Pyle, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.