Sufficiency of the evidence to support the defendant’s convictions of CSC I & II; MCL 750.520b(1)(a) & MCL 750.520c(1)(a); People v. Hoffman; People v. Lemmon; People v. Phelps; MCL 750.520h; People v. Panknin; “Sexual penetration” defined; MCL 750.520a(r); “Sexual contact” defined; MCL 750.520a(q); Prosecutorial misconduct; Due process; Claim that the prosecutor impermissibly shifted the burden of proof during closing argument & failed to test certain evidence for DNA or fingerprints; People v. Petri; People v. Coy; People v. Burwick; People v. Jordan; People v. Greenfield; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to investigate or call potential witnesses or to sufficiently cross-examine others; People v. Payne; People v. Russell

The evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s CSC I and II convictions. Also, the court could not find that he was denied due process, particularly because he did “not contend that he was denied the ability to inspect the items or to have them tested himself.” Finally, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. The victim was 12 years old at the time of trial, so there could be no serious doubt that she was “under 13 years of age.” Defendant’s two CSC I convictions were based, respectively, on an incident where the victim testified that he “called her into his room and effectuated anal penetration, and an incident where he effectuated anal penetration while the victim was in a bed with her sister.” Her testimony was sufficient to establish his CSC I convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, as to defendant’s CSC II convictions, the victim testified “about an incident when defendant placed his hand on her ‘front area’ and ‘rubbed it back and forth,’ and an incident when defendant made her masturbate him.” The testimony was “more than adequate to generate a reasonable inference that defendant engaged in both acts for the purpose of sexual gratification, and defendant’s argument to the effect that the case against him must be speculative because a medical examination of the victim found no evidence of injury” was simply irrelevant. His doubt as to her credibility was not a sufficient basis to undermine the jury’s finding that she was credible. Affirmed.