Aaron Ganshorn, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] For approximately two years, Aaron Ganshorn sexually abused Child. Ganshorn was charged with and convicted of attempted child molesting and other related crimes. Ganshorn now appeals, raising one issue for our review: Whether the State presented sufficient evidence at trial to support Ganshorn's attempted child molesting conviction.

[2] We affirm

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Beginning when Child was approximately three years old, she visited Ganshorn “[e]very other weekend and every Wednesday,” Revised Tr. Vol. II at 48, at his home in Marshall County, Indiana. Child has “significant cognitive deficits in her ability to process information,” id. at 32.

[4] In February 2024, when Child was 15 years old, she disclosed to her special education aide that Ganshorn had been sexually abusing her. The State charged Ganshorn with seven offenses related to the allegations, including attempted child molesting as a Level 1 felony, attempted sexual misconduct with a minor as a Level 4 felony, and sexual misconduct with a minor as a Level 5 felony.

[5] At Ganshorn's bench trial, Child testified that Ganshorn began sexually abusing her when she was 13 years old and continued until she was 15 years old. Child stated that Ganshorn put “[h]is penis” on her “[l]ady's area” over her clothes and “tr[ied] to put it in there,” which felt “[n]ot good.” Revised Tr. Vol. II at 53. Child said that Ganshorn touched the “[o]utside,” id. at 54, of her “[l]ady's area,” id. at 53, with “[h]is hands” both over and under her clothes, id. at 54; he also “squeez[ed],” id. at 55, her “breast ․ [u]nder” her clothes, id. at 54. Each of these things happened “[m]ore than one” time. Id. at 55. “White stuff” would come out of Ganshorn's penis when he touched Child. Id. at 56. Child further testified that Ganshorn told her “[t]hat [the abuse] was a secret” and that “[i]f [she] told someone about it, [she] would go in [her] room all day,” which was a punishment. Id. Ganshorn testified in his own defense and denied the abuse.

[6] The trial court found Ganshorn guilty of attempted child molesting as a Level 1 felony, attempted sexual misconduct with a minor as a Level 4 felony, and sexual misconduct with a minor as a Level 5 felony. The trial court found Ganshorn not guilty of the remaining charges. In reaching its verdict, the trial court found Child “credible” and noted that she had been “consistent” in naming Ganshorn as the perpetrator and in describing the abuse. Revised Tr. Vol. II at 136. The trial court sentenced Ganshorn to a total of 26 years of incarceration. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

The State Presented Sufficient Evidence to Support Ganshorn's Attempted Child Molesting Conviction

[7] Ganshorn argues that the State presented insufficient evidence at trial to support his attempted child molesting conviction.¹ Our standard of review for such a claim is as follows:

“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.’ ” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015)). This Court reviews only the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences therefrom, and will reverse only where it is shown that “no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” [Teising v. State, 226 N.E.3d 780, 783 (Ind. 2024)].

Konkle v. State, 253 N.E.3d 1068, 1090–91 (Ind. 2025). We do not reweigh the evidence or reassess witness credibility. Id. at 1090 (quoting Teising, 226 N.E.3d at 783).

[8] To convict Ganshorn of attempted child molesting as a Level 1 felony as charged, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when Child was less than 14 years old and Ganshorn was at least 21 years old, Ganshorn knowingly engaged in conduct that constituted a substantial step toward inserting his penis into Child's vagina. See Ind. Code §§ 35-42-4-3(a)(1) (effective July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2025), 35-41-5-1; Appellant's App. Vol. II at 105. Ganshorn argues only that the State did not prove that Child was 13 years old when the attempted intercourse occurred.

[9] At trial, the following two exchanges occurred regarding Child's ages during the abuse:

[The State:] Now you mentioned that you had to tell your teacher that [Ganshorn] had raped you because it was crushing you inside and you just had to get it out. Did that happen one time or more than one time?

[Child:] More than one.

* * *

[The State:] Do you remember how old you were the first time anything like that happened with [Ganshorn]?

[Child:] Thirteen.

[The State:] Do you remember the last time something happened with [Ganshorn]? Do you remember how old you were?

[Child:] Fifteen.

Revised Tr. Vol. II at 51–52.

[The State:] And so all of these things you said, you think the first time happened when you were 13 and it was still happening, all of these things were happening more than once and it was still happening when you were 15?

[Child:] Yes.

Id. at 55.

[10] Ganshorn specifically contends that the evidence was insufficient because Child did not “describe a discrete incident of attempted intercourse and identify her age at the time as 13”; instead, Child's testimony was “fully consistent with the first incident having been touching or fondling rather than attempted intercourse.” Appellant's Br. at 16. This is a request for us to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility, which we cannot do. See Konkle, 253 N.E.3d at 1090 (quoting Teising, 226 N.E.3d at 783). The trial court specifically credited Child's testimony; Child responded affirmatively to the State's question that “all of these things” began happening when she was 13 years old, Revised Tr. Vol. II at 55; Child defined “raped” as “[f]orced to have sex,” id. at 53; and the evidence shows that Ganshorn first “did something like,” id. at 52, “rape[ ],” id. at 51, 53, to Child when she was 13 years old. From this testimony, the trial court could have reasonably inferred that Ganshorn attempted to have intercourse with Child when she was 13 years old. We therefore cannot say the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support Ganshorn's attempted child molesting conviction, and we affirm that conviction.

[11] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ganshorn does not challenge his convictions for attempted sexual misconduct with a minor as a Level 4 felony and sexual misconduct with a minor as a Level 5 felony.

Felix, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and Bradford, J., concur.