Sufficiency of the evidence for a CSC II conviction under MCL 750.520c(1)(a) & (2)(b); People v DeLeon; Credibility determinations; Principle that the prosecution need not negate every reasonable theory of innocence; Uncorroborated testimony; MCL 750.520h

Finding no merit in defendant-Hawkins’s sufficiency of the evidence challenge, the court affirmed his CSC II conviction. “The victim testified that, while she was fully clothed, Hawkins twice used his hand to touch her ‘private part’—referring to her vaginal area—and once touched her buttocks. This evidence established that [he] engaged in sexual contact with the clothing covering the immediate area of [her] intimate parts. The victim explained that Hawkins left and returned multiple times to inappropriately touch her. She also recalled feeling movement by [his] hand when he touched her vaginal area and buttocks. Under these circumstances, a reasonable person could construe Hawkins as having intentionally touched the victim for a sexual purpose.” Further, there was no dispute that, when the abuse occurred, “the victim was 12 years old and Hawkins was more than 17 years old. A rational jury could therefore find that the prosecution proved each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” The court noted that Hawkins did not challenge any element of the CSC II offense – instead, he attacked “the victim’s credibility by noting several times when she testified that she did not recall certain details about the incident.” Apart from the fact the court does not interfere with the jury’s credibility determinations, “the victim’s memory was not as limited as Hawkins suggests. Although [she] could not recall which specific night the abuse happened, she knew the general time frame. She also remembered how many times she was touched, where she was touched, how she was touched, and how far apart each touching occurred. The jury could consider all those factors when weighing [her] truthfulness and credibility.” Hawkins further questioned whether she “had reason to lie about the sexual assault.” However, the jury was likewise “able to consider and weigh” the evidence on which he relied for this argument, and make its own credibility assessments. “The prosecution met its evidentiary burden in this case.” While Hawkins argued that the victim’s testimony was uncorroborated, he also conceded a CSC II conviction can be sustained based on such testimony. Further, the prosecution presented corroborating evidence.