Sufficiency of the evidence; People v Nowack; Identity element; MCL 750.520b(1)(a); People v Yost; Motion for new trial; MCR 6.431(B); People v Lemmon; No duty to develop exculpatory evidence; People v Anstey

The court held that sufficient evidence supported defendant’s CSC I conviction and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion for a new trial. The victim, who was 11 at the time, testified that she awoke during a sleepover at defendant’s home to “pressure and a stinging sensation” in her vagina and described defendant touching inside her vagina with a “pushing” motion. She identified defendant immediately afterward to her mother, during a nurse examination, and in a forensic interview. On appeal, defendant challenged identity and characterized DNA evidence as exculpatory, but the court concluded the victim’s “clear and consistent testimony” identifying defendant was sufficient on its own to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt and that credibility was for the jury. It explained the autosomal testing on one underwear sample’s sperm-cell fraction strongly supported that defendant was not a contributor to that particular male DNA, but other testing supported the prosecution (Y-STR testing on different samples produced a haplotype matching defendant’s haplotype, with testimony that an analyst would expect to examine about 3,062 males before seeing that haplotype again in the population), and the panel concluded the DNA evidence was not exonerating and did not undermine sufficiency. The court also upheld denial of a new trial where defendant argued the prosecution should have obtained DNA from defendant’s grandson to exclude defendant, holding this was “wholly, completely, totally speculation,” emphasizing there is “a crucial distinction between failing to disclose evidence that has been developed and failing to develop evidence in the first instance,” and that police and prosecutors have no constitutional duty to search for or develop potentially exculpatory evidence when the investigation did not provide a reasonable basis to obtain that additional sample. Affirmed.