Sufficiency of the evidence; People v. Reese; People v. Nowack; Principle that in CSC cases a victim’s testimony may be sufficient to support a conviction & need not be corroborated; People v. Solloway; CSC I; MCL 750.520b(1)(c), (e), & (f); CSC as a general intent crime; People v. Nyx; People v. Henry; Kidnapping; MCL 750.349(1)(c); People v. Jaffray; Assault by strangulation (MCL 750.84) & with a dangerous weapon (MCL 750.82); People v. Starks; A dangerous weapon defined; People v. Bosca; Intent; People v. Johnson; Voir dire; People v. Tyburski; The right to a peremptory challenge; People v. Bell; MCR 2.511(G); Effect of a “pass”; MCR 2.511(E)(3)(b); People v. Schmitz; Harmless error; People v. Lukity; People v. Anthony; Judicial misconduct; People v. Stevens; Exercise of reasonable control over the mode & order of interrogating witnesses & presenting evidence; MRE 611(a); People v. Biddles

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s convictions of CSC I, kidnapping, assault by strangulation, and assault with a deadly weapon. It agreed that the trial court abused its discretion in apparently using a voir dire practice under which parties were not allowed “to peremptorily challenge any seated juror on whom the party had already passed.” But the court concluded that the error was harmless. Finally, it rejected defendant’s judicial misconduct claims. The victim (SH) testified that defendant raped her several times. A forensic exam revealed that she had “28 distinct injuries all over her body, including her genitals. The examining nurse testified that SH’s injuries—'the most significant’ she had seen in over 600 forensic examinations—were ‘very consistent’ with SH’s account.” In addition, DNA analysis indicated “that male DNA found on SH’s torn labia minora were 21 octillion times more likely to have originated from defendant than from an unknown donor. SH testified that she never had consensual sex with defendant during the two or three months she had known him. She identified” a black-handled hammer recovered by police as the one he “hit her with while raping her. DNA analysis of that hammer yielded ‘very strong support’ that SH and defendant were donors.” The court held that in light of SH’s testimony, the forensic exam, and the DNA analyses, there was sufficient evidence to establish counts of CSC I under MCL 750.250b(1)(c), (e), and (f). SH’s testimony was also sufficient to support inferences that he knowingly restrained her and intended to engage in CSC. Thus, the evidence was “sufficient to establish the elements of kidnapping beyond a reasonable doubt.” It was likewise sufficient to show that he, “intentionally and without consent, touched SH in a harmful or offensive manner by applying pressure to her throat or neck and by employing a hammer as a dangerous weapon.” The trial court’s peremptory challenge restriction only allowing a party to use the challenges as to newly-seated potential jurors who replaced a dismissed juror “violated the plain language of MCR 2.511(E)(3)(b) and (G)[.]” But the error did not require automatic reversal, and it was harmless here. Affirmed.