MEMORANDUM DECISION
May, Judge.
[1] Dominique Banks appeals his conviction of Level 3 felony rape.
1
He argues the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction because the victims testimony was inconsistent with the victims earlier report of the incident. Because the facts most favorable to the judgment support his conviction, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On November 10, 2020, C.S. moved from the detox unit of the Marion County Jail to a regular block of the jail. Around 7 p.m., C.S. was placed in the cell where Banks was staying. C.S. then left the cell and went to the dayroom for a few hours. At 11 p.m., C.S. and Banks went to their cell for lockdown. C.S. climbed onto the top bunk and was making small talk with Banks, who was on the bottom bunk. The discussion soon turned to C.S.’s sexuality, as he had been harassed by another inmate in the jail that day for being homosexual. Banks then made a comment about “getting his dick sucked[,]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 91), and indicated that he wanted C.S. to perform oral sex. C.S. told Banks that he was not interested.
[3] Soon thereafter, C.S. got down from the top bunk to use the toilet. As C.S. was urinating, he looked back. Banks had his erect penis out of his pants, and he asked C.S. to give him oral sex. C.S. again indicated he was not interested. As C.S. returned to his bunk, Banks grabbed C.S.’s wrists and pulled C.S. down toward Banks, whose penis was still out. Banks again asked for oral sex, but this time, he grabbed the back of C.S.’s neck and forced C.S.’s head toward his penis. C.S. feared Banks would physically harm him, so he started to perform oral sex on Banks.
[4] Three to five minutes later, while C.S. continued performing oral sex, Banks put his hand down the back of C.S.’s pants and, for approximately one minute, repeatedly inserted his finger into C.S.’s rectum. Banks then pulled down C.S.’s boxers and said, “I want to fuck you.” (Id. at 95.) C.S. was “in shock” and “scared” for his safety, but he also was telling himself “to comply with whatevers going on to minimize whatever” might happen. (Id.) Banks moved to push his penis against C.S.’s anus and then inserted his penis in C.S.’s anus, which was painful for C.S. Banks continued penetrating C.S.’s anus for “[m]ore than a couple minutes.” (Id. at 96.) After Banks ejaculated, C.S. went to the toilet area to clean himself.
[5] C.S. then laid himself down on the floor of the cell and began convulsing like he was having a seizure because he wanted to “get out of this cell[.]” (Id. at 98.) Banks notified correctional officers that there was a medical issue, and correctional officers came to get C.S. After he had been removed from the cell, C.S. informed the officers that he had been sexually assaulted, and they took him to the hospital. C.S. received pain medications at the hospital “because of how rough the intercourse was.” (Id. at 100.) C.S. then spoke with a forensic nurse about what happened, and the nurse performed a sexual assault examination, during which she collected samples from C.S.’s mouth and anus.
[6] Police began an investigation. They interviewed Banks and collected a DNA sample from him. C.S. also gave a statement to a detective. DNA analysis revealed Bankss DNA was found in the samples collected from inside C.S.’s mouth and his anus. On March 13, 2023, the State charged Banks with Level 3 felony rape and Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury.
2
Banks waived his right to a jury trial, and on September 20, 2023, the trial court found him guilty of rape and not guilty of battery. On October 5, 2023, the trial court held a sentencing hearing and imposed an eight-year sentence.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Banks claims the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. When faced with challenges to the sufficiency of evidence, we apply a “well settled” standard of review that leaves determinations of the weight of the evidence and credibility of the witnesses to the fact-finder. Teising v. State, 226 N.E.3d 780, 783 (Ind. 2024). “We consider only the evidence most favorable to the trial courts ruling and will affirm a defendants conviction unless ‘no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Id. (quoting Jenkins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 2000)).
[8] To convict Banks of Level 3 felony rape, the State had to prove Banks “knowingly or intentionally cause[d] [C.S.] to perform or submit to other sexual conduct (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-221.5) when: (1) the other person is compelled by force or imminent threat of force ․” Ind. Code § 35-42-4-1(a)(1). Other sexual conduct is an act that involves “(1) a sex organ of one (1) person and the mouth or anus of another person; or (2) the penetration of the sex organ or anus of a person by an object.” Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-221.5. Proving that other sexual conduct occurred requires only “proof of the slightest penetration[.]” Boggs v. State, 104 N.E.3d 1287, 1289 (Ind. 2018) (discussing penetration of the sex organ by an object).
[9] Banks notes “C.S.’s testimony was inconsistent with his statement to the forensic nurse regarding almost every detail of the rape.” (Appellants Br. at 12.) He also notes C.S. had two motives to fabricate the sexual assault – to get access to drugs or money.
3
Banks then argues that when “[c]onfronted with the numerous discrepancies between C.S.’s testimony and his statement to the nurse, and his motive to fabricate such an attack, no reasonable factfinder could conclude the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Banks raped C.S.” (Id. at 16.)
[10] However, the trial court explicitly found C.S. credible and explained why it found Banks guilty:
․ So the verdict on Count I will be guilty. And the reason I will tell you that is one of the things that struck me is [C.S.] indicated that he had just listened to the statement this morning and [defense counsel] asked him questions, you said this and he said he didnt remember it, he didnt adopt everything that was told to him to something that was there. So I believe that he testified from his memory of what happened and I believe that he – he is credible and that his testimony meets the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt.
Further, because of the DNA – and I understand, [defense counsel], that is not all the way up in the anal cavity where the swab goes, but it does go far enough inside the anal cavity that it is inside the anal cavity, not just on the outside because thats why they took two sets of swabs. One is on the outside around the outside of the anal cavity and one is on the inside. And theres really no reasonable explanation for Mr. Bankss DNA to be inside the anal cavity of [C.S.] unless his penis was in there. And he indicated that he did not do that and that the oral sex was consensual. So ․ the verdict on Count I is guilty.
(Tr. Vol. 2 at 150-51.)
[11] The trial court was present to observe the witnesses as they testified, and “[i]t is the fact-finders role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction.” Teising, 226 N.E.3d at 783 (quoting Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007)). While C.S.’s testimony about the event did not match his initial report in all respects, we do not reverse convictions based on such discrepancies. See, e.g., Murray v. State, 761 N.E.2d 406, 409 (Ind. 2002) (declining to reverse based on incredible dubiosity rule because “[a]lthough [victims] trial testimony was inconsistent in some respects with his pre-trial statement, it was not equivocal, and [victim] did not contradict himself on the witness stand”). It is not surprising that C.S.’s memory of the event might have changed during the three years between the event and the trial, and as the trial court noted, C.S. was testifying to what he remembered, even when it was different from the recorded statement that had been played for him on the day of trial. (See Tr. Vol. 2 at 150.) C.S.’s trial testimony, which formed the basis of the facts presented above, along with the corroborating DNA evidence, was sufficient to demonstrate Banks compelled C.S. by force or imminent threat of force to perform or submit to other sexual conduct. See, e.g., Morales v. State, 227 N.E.3d 183, 189 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (affirming convictions of rape where victim felt scared of what might happen if she did not comply).
Conclusion
[12] Because assessing the credibility of the witnesses is a task assigned to the factfinder, we cannot invade the fact-finders assessment of C.S. as credible. The evidence most favorable to the trial courts judgment supports Bankss conviction of Level 3 felony rape, and we therefore affirm.
[13] Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Ind. Code § 35-42-4-1.
2
. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c)(1) & (d)(1). The battery charge arose from C.S.’s initial report of the assault, which indicated Banks had hit C.S. in the face.
3
. At the hospital, C.S. asked a nurse if it was possible that he “could get money from this incident.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 58.)
Memorandum Decision by Judge May
Judges Vaidik and Kenworthy concur.
Vaidik, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.