Sufficiency of the evidence; CSC III; “Sexual penetration”; MCL 750.520a(r); Consecutive sentencing; MCL 769.1h(1); Rationale; People v Norfleet; Scoring of OV 4 (psychological injury); MCL 777.34(1)(a); People v White; Authentication; The best-evidence rule; MRE 1003; Hearsay; Excited utterance exception; MRE 803(2); Witness testimony under MRE 602; Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b)(1); Other acts of sexual assault; MCL 768.27b; Relevance; MRE 401; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403

Finding no errors requiring reversal, the court affirmed defendant’s (Higdon) convictions and sentences for CSC III and first-degree home invasion arising out of his sexual assault of the victim (with who he had been friends since they were teenagers) while she was asleep. On appeal, the court first found “the evidence was sufficient to support Higdon’s CSC-III conviction despite that—or even because—the victim testified that Higdon placed his mouth on and bit her vagina.” In addition, the court found that the trial “court sufficiently justified its decision to impose consecutive sentences.” Further, as to OV 4, the trial court did not err by finding the victim suffered a serious psychological injury requiring treatment. Finally, as to the admission of evidence, the court found that: (1) a recorded statement of his voice “was what the proponent claimed it was” and “technical difficulties with the recording were resolved”; (2) “witnesses permissibly testified about matters within their personal knowledge regarding conversations with Higdon, Higdon’s hat, and the bite marks”; and (3) the victim’s statement to her boyfriend about the event was an excited utterance as she “was still under the effects of the event” when she told him about it; and (4) “evidence of his other sexual assault conduct was not substantially more prejudicial than probative.”