Opinion
24A-CR-180
12-02-2024
William R. Lamb, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Jennifer L. Koethe Wake Forest, North Carolina. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General John R. Oosterhoff Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana.
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the LaPorte Circuit Court Trial Court Cause No. 46C01-2211-F1-1530, The Honorable Thomas J. Alevizos, Judge.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Jennifer L. Koethe Wake Forest, North Carolina.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General John R. Oosterhoff Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana.
Vaidik, Judge and Crone, Senior Judge concur.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Altice, Chief Judge.
Case Summary
[¶1] William R. Lamb (Lamb) appeals his conviction for Level 3 felony rape. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses were incredibly dubious.
[¶2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[¶3] B.B., born in May 2005, and Bre.B., born in August 1999, are sisters (the Girls) who have been raised by their paternal grandmother (Grandmother). Though an adult, Bre.B. functions at the cognitive level of about a kindergartner or first grader. With an IQ of 47, she is "in the extremely low range of intellectual functioning." Exhibits Vol. 1 at 10.
[¶4] In the summer of 2017, Grandmother, B.B., and Bre.B. moved to LaPorte County, where they lived in a four-bedroom home with several other people. Grandmother and her girlfriend shared a bedroom on the main floor, and the Girls shared the other bedroom, sleeping on mattresses on the floor. Grandmother's adult autistic son had a bedroom in the basement, and her other adult son - B.B. and Bre.B.'s father (Father) - shared the other basement bedroom with his girlfriend, Samantha Moore (Samantha).
[¶5] Lamb, who worked with Samantha at Dominos, periodically stayed at the house between late 2017 and February 2018. He would sleep on a recliner or couch in the living room, not far from the Girls' bedroom. He quickly became close with the Girls, particularly B.B., who was twelve years old at the time. Around November 2017, B.B. began telling Grandmother that Lamb had said he wanted to marry B.B. when she turned eighteen. B.B. enjoyed the attention from Lamb and began to believe they were in a relationship.
[¶6] At some point, another temporary occupant of the house, Harold Wayne Warren (Warren), witnessed an interaction between B.B. and Lamb that appeared "a little too intimate." Transcript Vol. 2 at 241. B.B. and Lamb were standing in the hallway outside of the Girls' bedroom. Lamb was embracing B.B., and Warren believed the two might be kissing. Warren went to the basement and reported what he had seen to Father, who responded that "[Lamb] wasn't that dumb." Id.
[¶7] Adults in the house also became aware that Lamb would sometimes lie between the Girls in their room. Grandmother told Lamb that "he didn't need to be doing that." Id. at 216. Although Grandmother continued to find Lamb with the Girls, she did not ask him to leave. When asked about sleeping in the Girls' room, Lamb told Warren "the girls felt uncomfortable sleeping by themselves." Id. at 247.
[¶8] Later in January 2018, Samantha came upstairs one night to say goodnight to the Girls. She opened their door and saw Lamb inside the room. He was kneeling and appeared to be kissing B.B., who was sitting up in her bed. Samatha "gasped" and asked Lamb what he was doing. Transcript Vol. 3 at 33. Lamb looked shocked. Samatha told him to get out of the room and then she told Father what she had seen. Father confronted Lamb, telling Lamb that "he shouldn't be doing things like that" and that Father would "whoop" him if he did it again. Id. at 11. Grandmother also asked Lamb "what was up[,]" but she never told him to leave. Transcript Vol. 2 at 231.
[¶9] By March 2018, Lamb, as well as Father and Warren, were no longer living in the home. Grandmother was preparing to move to Texas with B.B. and others on March 17. Just before the move, B.B. came to Grandmother crying and reported that Lamb had molested her. B.B. told Grandmother not to call the police, as she wanted Father to handle it.
Bre.B. did not initially move to Texas. She stayed with Father, who traveled with and worked on a carnival that summer. Bre.B. joined Grandmother and B.B. in Texas in August 2018.
[¶10] B.B. later disclosed the sexual abuse to a close friend in Texas. The friend told others, and the information eventually made it to the school and Texas authorities in August 2018. The next month, the LaPorte County Sheriff's Department began an investigation.
[¶11] B.B. attempted suicide in early October 2018 and was taken to the hospital and then admitted to a mental health facility for several days. After staying in the hospital overnight with B.B., Grandmother found Bre.B. crying upon her return. Grandmother asked what was wrong, and Bre.B. replied, "because I'm in trouble ... because [Lamb] messed with me, too." Id. at 208-09. Bre.B. indicated that she knew B.B. "had a secret" and that Lamb had touched them both. Id. at 224.
[¶12] Grandmother reported Bre.B.'s disclosure to the detective in Texas with whom she had been dealing. B.B. and Bre.B. submitted to forensic interviews at a child advocacy center in Texas on October 25 and 26, 2018. During their individual interviews, the Girls each disclosed sexual abuse.
[¶13] The criminal investigation by the LaPorte County Sheriff's Department eventually became inactive due to difficulties locating certain individuals. The matter was reopened in November 2020 at Grandmother's urging, and Officer Gabriel Struss was assigned to the case. He interviewed Lamb briefly in December 2020, and Lamb denied ever staying at the home. When interviewed by Officer Struss again in March 2021, Lamb admitted staying at the home for a couple of weeks in the winter. Lamb described B.B. as clingy and desiring attention, which she did not get from Father. Lamb eventually acknowledged that he would hug and kiss B.B. goodnight but claimed that he would not kiss her on the lips, only on the forehead and cheek. He would also come into the Girls' bedroom and sit at the foot of their beds until they fell asleep. Lamb told Officer Struss that after B.B. said that she loved him, he realized things had gotten out of hand and he had to go. Lamb also acknowledged that he fled on foot the day in March 2018 when he learned Father was on his way to confront him about B.B.'s initial allegations.
[¶14] On November 17, 2022, the State charged Lamb with three counts of child molesting (relating to B.B.) and two counts of rape (relating to Bre.B.). His three-day jury trial commenced on November 13, 2023. The State's witnesses included B.B. (then age seventeen), Bre.B., Grandmother, Father, Samantha, Warren, and Officer Struss.
[¶15] B.B. described the first incident of sexual abuse, though she testified that it happened multiple times while Lamb was staying at their home in Indiana. B.B. testified that sometime after Christmas, Lamb came in while she and Bre.B. were sleeping and started touching B.B.'s "vagina and [] boobs" and kissing her. Id. at 49. According to B.B., Lamb pulled off her underwear and nightgown and then put his fingers "[i]n [her] vagina hole[,]" which hurt B.B. Id. at 50. When he was done with B.B., Lamb then moved over to Bre.B., who was sleeping. B.B. testified that Lamb removed Bre.B.'s clothes and then had "full-on sex with her." Id. at 52.
[¶16] Bre.B. testified that Lamb had sex with her while she was asleep and that it hurt. She described him pulling off her pants, being on top of her in bed, and putting his penis in her vagina. She told him to stop, but he did not do so until Samantha came upstairs to use the bathroom across from the Girls' room. Lamb then pulled his pants up and laid down between the Girls. Bre.B. testified that Samantha checked on them after going to the bathroom and yelled at Lamb to get out. Before he left, Lamb told Bre.B. not to tell anyone.
[¶17] The jury found Lamb guilty of raping Bre.B. under Count III, which alleged that he had sexual intercourse with Bre.B. when she was unable to consent due to her mental disability. The jury could not reach a verdict on the four remaining counts. Accordingly, the trial court entered judgment of conviction on Count III and declared a mistrial as to the other counts. On December 22, 2023, the trial court sentenced Lamb to twelve years in prison.
[¶18] Lamb appeals his conviction, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
Discussion & Decision
[¶19] Our standard of review on a claim of insufficient evidence is well settled:
For a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we look only at the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. We do not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 696 (Ind. 2017) (citations omitted). Further, a conviction can be based on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness, "even when that witness is the victim." Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012).
[¶20] To convict Lamb of Level 3 felony rape as charged, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally had sexual intercourse with Bre.B. when she was so mentally disabled or deficient that consent to sexual intercourse could not be given. See Ind. Code § 35-42 1(a)(3); Appellant's Appendix at 21. Lamb does not argue that the specific elements are unsupported by the evidence. He argues only that the testimonies of B.B. and Bre.B. were incredibly dubious - "contradictory and equivocal" -and thus should not be believed. Appellant's Brief at 13.
[¶21] As our Supreme Court has stated:
Under our "incredible dubiosity" rule, we will invade the jury's province for judging witness credibility only in exceptionally rare circumstances. The evidence supporting the conviction must have been offered by a sole witness; the witness's testimony must have been coerced, equivocal, and wholly uncorroborated; it must have been "inherently improbable" or of dubious credibility; and there must have been no circumstantial evidence of the defendant's guilt.McCallister v. State, 91 N.E.3d 554, 559 (Ind. 2018) (emphasis supplied). "Incredible dubiosity is a difficult standard to meet, requiring ambiguous, inconsistent testimony that 'runs counter to human experience.'" Carter v. State, 44 N.E.3d 47, 52 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015) (quoting Edwards v. State, 753 N.E.2d 618, 622 (Ind. 2012)).
[¶22] The incredible dubiosity rule does not apply here because Bre.B. was not the sole testifying witness. Both she and B.B. were eyewitnesses to the rape, testifying that Lamb came into their room and had sexual intercourse with Bre.B. Further, the State presented substantial circumstantial evidence corroborating the fact that Lamb had inappropriate intimate contact with B.B. and spent time in the Girls' bedroom at night. In fact, after initially lying to Officer Struss, Lamb eventually acknowledged that he had stayed at the home for about two weeks, during which time he became close with B.B. And he admitted that B.B. would sit on his lap, that he kissed and hugged her at times, and that he spent time in the Girls' bedroom as they fell asleep. He also told Officer Struss that he realized things had gotten out of hand when B.B. said that she loved him.
Lamb's reliance on Smith v. State, 163 N.E.3d 925 (Ind.Ct.App. 2021), is misplaced. In that case, the State presented three witnesses at trial, but only one was an eyewitness - the child molest victim. A panel of this court found the sole testifying witness factor of the incredible dubiosity rule had been met because the victim's testimony was critical to proving the State's case, as the two other witnesses - victim's mother and a detective - were not eyewitnesses to the crime and offered testimony "lacking in specificity to establish the necessary factual basis of the crime." Id. at 929. Such is not the case here, where we have two eyewitnesses to the rape.
[¶23] Lamb's argument that the incredible dubiosity rule applies is without merit. Accordingly, we reject his invitation to judge the credibility of the Girls and to reweigh the evidence. The State presented sufficient evidence to support the rape conviction.
[¶24] Judgment affirmed.
Vaidik, J. and Crone, Sr. J., concur.