Sufficiency of the evidence; CSC III; “Force or coercion”; AWIGBH; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Omittance of exculpatory evidence; Failure to acquire defendant’s girlfriend as a witness; Failure to question the relevance & authenticity of photos without specifying which photos were at issue; Failure to effectively cross-examine, impeach, or probe complainant as to her inconsistent injuries & delayed reporting of the incident; Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV)

Concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s CSC III and AWIGBH convictions and he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, the court affirmed. He was also convicted of domestic violence. Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for CSC III and AWIGBH, and that the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion for JNOV. The court held that considering “complainant’s testimony that [he] penetrated after physically assaulting her and despite her stated refusal, a reasonable juror could determine that force or coercion was used during both instances of sexual abuse.” It found that the jury could reasonably conclude that her testimony supported that she felt that forced to comply in a subsequent sexual encounter. The court noted she “also explained that her delayed disclosure of the assault was related to defendant’s presence at the hospital during [her] initial attempt to seek treatment, [her] consideration of the impact of [his] potential prosecution on his children, and [her] fear regarding defendant’s continued threats against her and her children.” Even though this is a common phenomenon in intimate-partner violence matters, to the extent defendant argued her “version of events was not credible, we ‘must defer to the fact-finder by drawing all reasonable inferences and resolving credibility conflicts in support of the jury verdict.’” The court also held that “although a complainant’s testimony in a CSC case ‘need not be corroborated,’” there were photos “documenting complainant’s injuries and damaged clothing.” In addition, her “primary care doctor testified to her injuries, noting that she had swelling on her neck and a soft tissue injury of the victim’s chest wall after the assault.” The court found “there was sufficient evidence to establish that defendant acted with an intent to inflict great bodily harm because [he] struck complainant multiple times during an argument, injuring her.” Alternatively, it found “there was adequate evidence . . . to support the jury’s determination that defendant was guilty of AWIGBH by strangulation because complainant testified [he] choked [her] to the point that she was unable to breathe, her eyes rolled back, and she urinated on herself.” Although he contended this “testimony was not credible” any conflict in the evidence must be resolved in the prosecutor’s favor. It concluded that sufficient evidence supported his convictions. Because his “arguments that the trial court erred by denying his motion for [JNOV] and that his conviction [was] against the great weight of the evidence [were] premised on his allegation that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions,” the court also found the relief requested on those grounds was not warranted.