Sufficiency of the evidence; AWIGBH & assault by strangulation; MCL 750.84(1)(a) & (b); People v Russell; People v Lydic; Domestic violence; MCL 750.81(2); People v Cameron; Inference of intent from the use of physical violence; People v Dillard; Credibility; Inconsistent verdicts; People v Montague

Finding no errors requiring reversal, the court affirmed defendant’s convictions of assault by strangulation, AWIGBH, and domestic violence. His convictions arose out of his repeated assaults of the victim while they were dating. He was acquitted of felonious assault and felony-firearm. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions because his acquittals “revealed the victim ‘was not a completely believable complainant.’” It noted that because it “must resolve all credibility determinations in favor of sustaining the jury’s verdict, defendant” failed to show his convictions should be reversed. The court also rejected his claim that his convictions and acquittals revealed inconsistent verdicts, noting the crimes he was acquitted of were not necessary to convict him of the other crimes. “The jurors could have determined that defendant did not use or possess the shotgun, which the victim claimed he pointed at her, while at the same time finding that defendant assaulted the victim by strangulation and also with the intent to inflict great bodily harm during a dating relationship.” Finally, he contended that his convictions were “based on speculative inferences, solely derived from the victim’s testimony. But her testimony and the corroborating evidence presented at trial were not speculative; they provided sufficient evidence to sustain defendant’s convictions.” In this case, as in Dillard, “the victim’s description of the defendant’s abuse constituted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that defendant intended to inflict great bodily harm.” The strangulation assessment “revealed that the victim had symptoms consistent with repeated choking, including difficulty breathing, throat pain, dizziness, and fainting. The jurors did not have to rely exclusively on the victim’s testimony. [Her] descriptions of defendant’s abuse—combined with the evidence corroborating her descriptions—was sufficient to prove that defendant assaulted her by strangulation, and that [he] intended to inflict great bodily harm upon her.” Affirmed.