Sufficiency of the evidence for CSC IV convictions under MCL 750.520e(1)(a) & (1)(b); Coercion; People v Premo; References to a witness as a “victim” during trial; Vouching; People v Douglas; People v Bahoda; Due process right to a fair trial; Plain error review; Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object; Allowing a victim to hold a stuffed animal while testifying; MCL 600.2163a(4); People v Johnson; Distinguishing People v Shorter; Prosecutorial misconduct; People v Dobek; People v Caddell; References to defendant as a pedophile

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant-Parsons’s CSC IV convictions, and that the trial court did not plainly err in allowing a police witness and the prosecutor to refer to a witness (M) as a victim. The trial court also did not plainly err in permitting M to hold a stuffed animal while testifying. While the court found the prosecutor erred by calling Parsons a pedophile, it concluded the error did not deny him a fair trial. Thus, his due process and ineffective assistance of counsel claims failed. He was convicted under MCL 750.520e(1)(a) and (1)(b) for sexually assaulting M, a friend of his daughter. The court held that, “viewing all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, the jury could have reasonably concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Parsons accomplished sexual contact with [M] through coercion, and that [he] made sexual contact with [M’s] intimate parts when she was from 13 to 15 years old.” She testified that he “touched her breasts and genital area four or more times. Text messages exchanged between” them in 2018 supported that he “had a sexual interest in [M], and it was undisputed that [M] spent a considerable amount of time at Parsons’s home. Between the content of the text messages and the locations of the touchings of [M], substantial evidence supported that Parsons intentionally touched [M’s] ‘intimate parts’ for a ‘sexual purpose’ or in a ‘sexual manner.’” While the sufficiency of the evidence as to his MCL 750.520e(1)(b) conviction presented “a somewhat more difficult question[,]” the court held that the evidence was sufficient “for rational jurors to reasonably conclude that [he] used coercion to accomplish sexual contact with [M]—specifically, that [he] used [M’s] unfortunate home situation, youth, naivety, self-esteem issues, and trust in him to induce her to submit to the sexual contact.” As to her holding a stuffed animal while testifying, the court found Parsons failed to show that this “was inherently prejudicial,” and thus, he had to establish actual prejudice, which he could not do. The jury acquitted him of six counts of CSC III and instead convicted him of three lesser counts of CSC IV. Given this, “the jury likely did not find [M’s] testimony wholly credible. It is a stretch to conclude that the jurors unfairly evaluated the evidence based solely on the presence of the stuffed animal.” Affirmed.