Whether adjudication was against the great weight of the evidence & based on insufficient evidence; People v Knepper

Holding that respondent-juvenile failed to show his CSC I “adjudication was against the great weight of the evidence or based on insufficient evidence[,]” the court affirmed. The arguments relied “on three inconsistencies or uncertainties in [victim-]JJ’s testimony, none of which undermine the adjudication below.” The court rejected respondent’s argument for several reasons. First, it was “true that JJ testified that respondent told him to move off the bed, yet stated at the Kids Talk interview that respondent physically moved him off the bed. But this Court recently rejected a great weight of the evidence argument based on a similar inconsistency, i.e., one which does not go to an element of the crime.” The court found as in Knepper, respondent did “not identify any ‘specific element’ of the adjudicated crime which JJ’s inconsistent statements negates. How JJ moved from the bed to the floor does not relate to the elements of CSC-I—sexual penetration of a victim under 13 years old.” The court found that the “specific inconsistency between JJ’s interview and the Kids Talk interview does not entitle respondent to a new trial.” Second, the court noted that “according to respondent, JJ claimed respondent’s assault ‘caused ongoing physical pain[,]’ but then admitted the pain went away within a few minutes.” This misstated the record. “JJ said the assault ‘hurt[,]’ but never testified it caused ongoing pain. [R] claimed JJ complained about ‘pain in his butt’ for about a year. Yet uncertainty about whether the assault caused JJ ongoing pain is also not a basis for vacating the trial court’s adjudication, as physical pain or injury is not an element of” CSC I. Respondent’s second argument was “factually unsupported and legally meritless.” Third, he briefly noted “that the witnesses were uncertain when the assault occurred.” The court concluded that uncertainty “as to what month or time of year the assault happened does not establish that respondent’s adjudication was against the great weight of the evidence.” Respondent next asserted “that the lack of corroboration of JJ’s testimony casts doubt on the reliability and fairness of the adjudication. However, a victim’s testimony need not be corroborated in a” CSC case. Respondent also argued “JJ’s failure to disclose respondent’s assault for three years undermines JJ’s credibility and the adjudication, but we generally will not interfere with the fact-finder’s credibility assessment.” Respondent had “not identified how the delay in reporting the assault is an exceptional circumstance to justify interfering with the trial court’s credibility determination.” Finally, he implied “the cumulative effect of the inconsistencies and lack of corroboration for JJ’s testimony entitle him to a new trial. Although the unfair prejudice of several actual errors can be aggregated to demonstrate cumulative error,” he had “not identified any actual errors.”