MEMORANDUM DECISION
Kenworthy, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Following a jury trial, Gilbert Catano, Jr. was convicted of raping and sexually battering his seventeen-year-old foster daughter.
1
Catano now appeals, claiming the State did not present sufficient evidence to support his convictions. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In 2020, M.S. and her brother lived with Catano, Catanos wife, and Catanos four children based on a placement through the Department of Child Services. Catanos family was the third different family M.S. had lived with.
[3] On New Years Eve 2020 and into New Years Day 2021, M.S., her brother, and Catanos family celebrated the holiday with a family meal and games. Several of the older children—including M.S.—were drinking alcohol with Catano and his wifes permission. Seventeen-year-old M.S. could “feel” the alcohol, but “wasnt feeling like sick or dizzy or anything.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 37.
[4] As the night progressed, M.S. continued to participate in the games. Because the games were growing in competitiveness, M.S. would stand up and move around the table. When M.S. got close to Catano, he started to put his hands down the back of her sweatpants “where no one could see.” Id. at 38. Catano—who was thirty-six years old at the time—touched M.S.’s buttocks and attempted to touch her vagina. Feeling uncomfortable and in shock, M.S. “kept on walking away” from Catano. Id. at 39. But he kept coming up to her.
[5] Later in the night, one of Catanos children went to the basement to go to bed. The group playing games—including M.S. and Catano—went downstairs to wake the “party pooper” up. Id. There, Catano tried to touch M.S.’s buttocks and vagina again. In response, M.S. kept moving away from Catano because she did not know what else to do.
[6] The party ended, and M.S. went to the living room to sleep on a couch. M.S. dozed off. Soon after, she woke up to Catano touching her and sitting on the couch near her legs. M.S.’s pants had been taken off. M.S. asked Catano what he was doing, and he replied “shh.” Id. at 43. Catano grabbed M.S.’s breasts and touched her vagina while looking into the dining room to ensure no one was coming. After M.S.’s brother eventually came into the living room, Catano stopped. M.S. fell back asleep.
[7] A few hours later, M.S. woke up to use the bathroom. M.S. stepped through the sliding door into the homes small bathroom. Catano followed her in. Catano then began to kiss M.S. on her lips and neck, bent her over the toilet, and pulled down her pants. M.S. tried to move and push Catano away. He did not stop. Catano put his penis inside M.S.’s mouth and vagina. And although M.S. was unsure if it was Catanos penis or his finger, she felt something inserted into her anus, which hurt “really, really bad.” Id. at 50. M.S. said “ow, ow” and tried again to push Catano off her. Id. When Catano was about to “finish,” he asked M.S. if she wanted him to do it inside her. Id. M.S. said no, and Catano ejaculated on M.S. between her leg and stomach. Around this time, Catanos son knocked on the bathroom door. Catano used a piece of dirty laundry to wipe his ejaculate off M.S. and told her to hurry and get dressed. M.S. did so, then ran out of the bathroom crying. A few days later, M.S. was taken to a hospital for a forensic examination.
[8] The State charged Catano with Level 3 felony rape, Level 5 felony child seduction, and Level 6 felony sexual battery. A jury found Catano guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate nine-year sentence in the Department of Correction.
Sufficient Evidence Supports Catanos Convictions
[9] Catano claims the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his convictions. A sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim warrants a “deferential standard of appellate review, in which we ‘neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility[.]’ ” Owen v. State, 210 N.E.3d 256, 264 (Ind. 2023) (quoting Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 570 (Ind. 2018), cert. denied). Instead, we respect the fact-finders 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 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). 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)).
[10] To prove Catano committed rape as charged, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Catano knowingly or intentionally had sexual intercourse with M.S. when M.S. was “compelled by force.” See I.C. § 35-42-4-1(a)(1). And to prove Catano committed sexual battery as charged, the State was required to show he touched M.S. with intent to arouse or satisfy his own sexual desires and compelled M.S. to submit to the touching by force. See I.C. § 35-42-4-8(a). On appeal, Catano challenges only whether the State presented sufficient evidence to prove the element of force necessary for his conduct to constitute the crimes of rape and sexual battery.
[11] We determine the presence or absence of force from the victims perspective, not the assailants. See Tobias v. State, 666 N.E.2d 68, 72 (Ind. 1996) (“This is a subjective test that looks to the victims perception of the circumstances surrounding the incident in question.”). The issue is therefore whether M.S. perceived Catanos force as compelling her to submit to Catanos sexual advances. See id.
[12] While recounting Catano touching her buttocks and attempting to touch her vagina, M.S. testified she repeatedly attempted to avoid Catanos sexual advances by walking away, distancing herself from him, or even attempting to physically push him away. Ignoring M.S.’s efforts, Catano continued to approach and inappropriately touch her. Moreover, after Catano followed M.S. into the bathroom, she tried to dodge and push him away and verbally expressed her pain. Catano forced himself upon her anyway. Based on these circumstances, there was sufficient evidence M.S. perceived Catanos force as compelling her compliance. See id. (holding there was sufficient evidence of force when an assailant demanded the victims compliance, physically forced himself upon her, and ignored her lack of consent, verbal resistance, and requests for him to stop); see also Bryant v. State, 644 N.E.2d 859, 861 (Ind. 1994) (holding there was sufficient evidence of actual force when assailant, among other things, pulled down victims pants and underwear and bruised victim). This is especially true considering Catano was M.S.’s foster parent when he raped and sexually battered her.
[13] To the extent Catano emphasizes evidence contrary to M.S.’s testimony, he essentially requests we reweigh evidence and judge witness credibility.
2
These are tasks we cannot undertake. See Owen, 210 N.E.3d at 264. In sum, the State presented sufficient evidence to enable a reasonable jury to find the element of compulsion by force proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
[14] Sufficient evidence supports Catanos convictions.
[15] Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Ind. Code §§ 35-42-4-1(a)(1) (2014) (Level 3 felony rape) & 35-42-4-8(a)(1)(A) (2014) (Level 6 felony sexual battery). Catano was also convicted of Level 5 felony child seduction, which he does not challenge in this appeal.
2
. The uncorroborated testimony of the victim is generally sufficient to sustain a conviction. See Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012).
Memorandum Decision by Judge Kenworthy
Judges May and Vaidik concur.
May, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.