to be applied is whether the testimony is so incredibly dubious or inherently improbable that no reasonable person could believe it.” Id. Having reviewed the record, we find that the testimony of six-year-old C.S. was not so incredibly dubious or inherently improbable that no reasonable person could believe it. While there are inconsistencies between some of C.S.’s statements, the inconsistencies “are appropriate to the circumstances presented, the age of the witness, and the passage of time between the incident and the time of her statements and testimony.” Id. at 1209. Based upon the facts detailed above, we conclude that the State presented evidence of probative value from which a reasonable jury could have found Surber guilty of child molesting as a class A felony. See, e.g., id. (<HOLDING>). V. The final issue is whether Sur-ber’s
holding that violence is synonymous with force in affirming armed robbery conviction holding that the incredible dubiosity rule was inapplicable and affirming the defendants conviction for child molesting holding an unborn child is not a child for purposes of criminal prosecution of mistreatment of a child holding child molesting statute required proof of scienter holding that heck was inapplicable where court vacated defendants conviction and government filed nolle prosequi indicating that it would not prosecute defendants case further