Sufficiency of the evidence; CSC I; MCL 750.520b(1)(a); “Sexual penetration”; MCL 750.520a(r); People v Payne; Right to a fair trial; Evidence from a sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE); Hearsay; Exception for statements made for medical treatment & diagnosis; MRE 803(4); People v Kosters; Improper vouching; People v Douglas; Prosecutorial error; People v Dobek; Right to a fair & impartial jury; People v Budzyn; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to make a futile objection

Finding no errors requiring reversal, the court affirmed defendant’s convictions of CSC I and II, which arose out of his sexual assault of the 6-year-old victim. It rejected his argument that the evidence was insufficient to support that he penetrated her beyond a reasonable doubt. Even though the victim, “who was eight years old at trial, did not use the proper nomenclature to describe anatomy, the evidence and reasonable inferences from it indicated that defendant sexually penetrated her genital opening.” She described his “actions as peeing in her ‘vulva,’ and stated [he] used the part of his anatomy from which he urinated for activity in her ‘privates.’” She was also “consistent in her reports of defendant’s actions.” And the forensic evidence indicated that he had sexually penetrated her. The court also rejected his claim that he was denied a fair and impartial trial due to the testimony of the SANE, which he asserted included inadmissible hearsay and improper vouching. It was readily apparent that the victim’s “statement to the SANE was for medical purposes, because the examination took place the day after the assault and included taking pertinent history from [her] before conducting the actual detailed physical examination.” In addition, because the SANE “did not comment on the veracity of” the victim’s comments or allegations, he did not establish “that any improper vouching took place.” The court next rejected his contention that the prosecutor’s closing argument included improper commentary that encouraged the jury to view the victim sympathetically. It noted that “because the challenged prosecutorial argument did not imply that the jury should consider [her] bravery as a factor in considering the evidence, there was no impropriety.” Finally, the court rejected his argument that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not objecting during trial to the testimony and commentary at issue on appeal, noting that “no objection would have been successful.” Affirmed.