what to say, J.B. also testified that her mother told her "to tell the truth." Transcript at 24. Having reviewed the record, we find that the testimony of seven-year-old J.B. was not so incredibly dubious or inherently improbable that no reasonable person could believe it. Indeed, the trial court, in finding Hampton guilty, noted that "the victim in this case is very credible, very articulate, mature young lady who gave explicit details of what this Defendant did to her...." Transcript at 111. Based upon the facts detailed above and set forth in the record, we conclude that the State presented evidence of probative value from which a reasonable jury could have found Hampton guilty of child molesting as a class A felony. See, eg., Surber v. State, 884 N.E.2d 856, 869 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Fajardo, 859 N.E.2d at 1209), trans.
holding that arresting officers testimony at suppression hearing supported finding of probable cause to arrest defendant for dwi despite contradictory testimony of defendant and his passenger and despite minor inconsistencies in officers testimony holding that testimony of sixyearold vietim was not incredibly dubious despite some inconsistencies and that such inconsistencies are appropriate to the cireumstances presented the age of the witness and the passage of time between the incident and the time of her statements and testimony holding that trier of fact may believe one witness disbelieve others and resolve inconsistencies in the testimony of any witness holding that it did not violate the defendants right to remain silent when the prosecutor questioned her about inconsistencies between her pretrial statements to authorities and her defense at trial holding that jurors may consider inconsistencies and deficiencies in testimony when assessing witness credibility