Sufficiency of the evidence for CSC I convictions under MCL 750.520b(1)(a); Inconsistencies in a victim’s testimony; Lack of physical evidence; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object to other acts evidence; MCL 768.27a; Relevance; Notice; MRE 404(b)(2); Decision not to object as sound trial strategy; Prejudice

Holding that the victim’s (AJ) testimony was sufficient to support defendant’s CSC I convictions and rejecting his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the court affirmed. AJ testified that he “forced her to perform oral sex on him on multiple occasions, describing in detail that ‘[w]hite stuff came out’ of defendant’s penis after the assaults, and that the abuse became more forceful over time.” Another child (LT) “corroborated this testimony, stating that he saw defendant ‘put his private part in [AJ’s] mouth’ on one occasion. That evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that defendant engaged in sexual penetration with AJ, who was under the 13 at the time.” He contended “AJ’s testimony was inconsistent with her prior statements[.]” She testified at the preliminary exam “that her mother questioned her about defendant several times, but she denied that at trial.” She also told a forensic interviewer that the abuse started when she was five but testified at the preliminary exam “that it began when she was eight or nine. And while she testified at trial that defendant assaulted her and LT simultaneously, she did not disclose that allegation during either her forensic interview or” the preliminary exam. The court concluded that these “inconsistencies do not warrant reversal.” It noted that it is the jury’s role to weigh the evidence and assess credibility. A jury “‘may choose to believe part of a witness’s testimony and disbelieve another part of’” it. The court determined that despite “the inconsistencies in AJ’s various statements and testimonies, the jury’s verdict demonstrates that it found credible her testimony that defendant sexually penetrated her, and we are ‘required to . . . make credibility choices in support of the jury verdict.’” Further, the lack “of physical evidence does not warrant reversal.” The court also held that the testimony of LT and another child was properly admitted under MCL 768.27a and trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise a futile objection. As to testimony that defendant sexually assaulted another witness as an adult, this was inadmissible but the record supported an inference that counsel objected to it “at sidebar to avoid highlighting it for the jury.” Thus, the alleged failure to object was “not ‘apparent on the record[.]’” The court added that even “if counsel’s performance was deficient, defendant” did not establish prejudice.