Sufficiency of the evidence; People v. Oros; CSC I; MCL 750.520b(1)(f) & (g); People v. Nickens; Sentencing; Scoring of 50 points for OV 7; People v. Wellman; People v. McChester; A preponderance of the evidence; People v. Cross; MCL 777.37(1)(a); People v. Hardy; People v. Rosa; Motion for a new trial; People v. Johnson; MCL 770.1; MCR 6.431(B); Great weight of the evidence; People v. Unger; People v. Lacalamita; People v. Lemmon; Credibility; People v. Wolfe

Holding that sufficient evidence was presented to support defendant’s CSC I conviction, and that the trial court did not err by assessing 50 points for OV 7 or by denying his motion for a new trial, the court affirmed his conviction and sentence. He was convicted of CSC I, and was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 35 to 60 years. Defendant did “not challenge any particular element, but instead cursorily identifies several inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, and argues that because the victim was not a credible witness, the evidence supporting defendant’s conviction” was insufficient. However, “the victim’s testimony was not patently incredible, and regardless, the credibility of the victim’s testimony is an issue solely for the jury.” In addition, a review of the record supported “the conclusion that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to satisfy all elements of” CSC I. Trial testimony established that he “physically injured the victim by striking her in the head with a large, hard object at least twice. Defendant did engage in sexual penetration of the victim, and used force to accomplish the act.” Specifically, he hit her “in the back of the head with an object, tied her up, and drove her to a secluded area where he penetrated her orally, anally, and vaginally.” Also, there was some testimony that he “may have drugged the victim in order to overpower her and accomplish his crime.” The court also disagreed with his claim that the jury’s verdict was against the great weight of the trial evidence. The jury credited the victim’s testimony, and given that resolving credibility issues is the jury’s province, defendant was not entitled to a new trial.