Great weight of the evidence; Whether the victim was under 13 years old at the time of the contested CSCs; People v Musser; Fair & impartial jury; People v Haynes; Child sexually abusive activity (CSAA)

The court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to reasonably conclude that victim-ED was under 13 years old at the time of the sexual abuse. Also, defendant failed to rebut the presumption that jurors follow the trial court’s jury instructions, and thus, the jury was presumed to be fair and impartial. The case arose from allegations that he “sexual assaulted his stepdaughter ED and his daughter MF while they were both minors.” He was convicted of CSC I, II, and III, and CSAA. The court held that even considering the contradicting evidence as to “ED’s age at the time of the first sexual assaults (fellatio with ED, attempted penetration with ED in the bathroom, and penetration of ED’s genital opening after leaving the bathroom, all when ED was 10 years old),” there was “sufficient evidence for the jury to reasonably conclude that ED was under 13 years old at the time.” When mother-H “asked ED in 2021 how long defendant had been sexually abusing her, ED responded, ‘eight years.’” In 2013, when she was 10 years old, she told H “that defendant had abused her and ‘hurt [her] down there.’ Additionally, ED testified that defendant began sexually abusing her when she was 10 years old. She remembered this because her family had been living in their old house. [H] confirmed that the family did not move into their current house until 2014. Thus, although ED also stated she told an interviewer in 2021 that defendant first sexually abused her about three or four years prior (when she was either 14 or 15 years old), ‘[c]onflicting testimony, even when impeached to some extent, is an insufficient ground for granting a new trial.’” Further, the court noted that “if resolution of a disputed factual question turns on the credibility of witnesses or the weight of the evidence, [this Court] will defer to the trial court, which had a superior opportunity to evaluate these matters.” The jury could reasonably determine that the sexual assaults occurred all when ED was 10 years old. “Thus, the evidence was not so heavily opposed to the verdict that it was a miscarriage of justice.” Therefore, he was not entitled to a new trial. Affirmed.