Sufficiency of the evidence; CSC II; MCL 750.520c(2)(b); “Sexual contact”; Prosecutorial error; Referencing facts not in evidence; Referring to the possible penalties defendant would face

The court concluded that (1) the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s CSC II conviction and (2) prosecutorial error warranting reversal did not occur. He argued “that no evidence was introduced from which a reasonable juror could conclude that defendant intentionally touched NP or that the alleged touching was done for sexual arousal or gratification, or done for a sexual purpose.” The evidence introduced, however, supported “the reasonable inference that defendant’s touching of NP’s breasts was intentional: her testimony on direct examination that she was awakened when defendant put his hand under her shirt and rubbed his hand back and forth across her breasts. From NP’s testimony, a rational jury could infer that defendant acted intentionally.” He argued “that NP’s testimony did not establish that he was awake during the alleged incident and did not establish how long the alleged assault lasted. But NP’s lack of certainty regarding the length of the assault and whether defendant was awake did not negate the reasonable inference arising from NP’s testimony that defendant intentionally touched her breasts. The jury evidently found NP’s testimony credible, and this Court defers to the credibility determinations of the trier of fact.” Defendant also argued “that even if he intentionally touched NP, the evidence did not demonstrate that the touching was for a sexual arousal, gratification, or purpose. However, only minimal circumstantial evidence is required to demonstrate a defendant’s state of mind regarding intent.” The court found that from “NP’s description of the incident, a rational trier of fact could infer that defendant acted with a sexual purpose.” Also, it concluded that the other acts “evidence the prosecution introduced suggested that defendant had an inappropriate sexual interest in NP. NP testified that defendant had commented that she had a ‘J Lo booty,’ referencing the derrière of a celebrity to whom he was apparently sexually attracted.” She also “testified that on one occasion when she objected to sleeping in the same bed with defendant, defendant agreed that he would sleep elsewhere while she slept with her mother; when she awoke, however, defendant was sleeping next to her in the bed.” NP further “testified that on one occasion, defendant forced her to ‘spoon’ with him in bed; when she objected and tried to get out of bed, he pulled her back into the bed, trapping her leg underneath his and thrusting his hips and pressing his groin area against her, such that she could feel his penis through their clothing.” Finally, she “testified that when she was younger, defendant would spend too much time ostensibly drying her vagina after a bath.” The court again noted that it defers “to the credibility determinations of the jury which found NP’s testimony sufficiently credible,” and held that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction. Affirmed.