Sufficiency of the evidence for a CSC I conviction under MCL 750.520b(1)(a); “Sexual penetration” (MCL 750.520a(r)); Failure to instruct the jury on CSC II; Whether CSC II is a necessarily lesser included offense of CSC I; People v Nyx

The court held that the child victim’s “testimony was not inherently incredible” and, considering it in the proper light, there was sufficient evidence to sustain defendant-Seegar’s CSC I conviction. He also was not entitled to relief on the basis the trial court did not instruct the jury on CSC II given that Nyx held that CSC II “‘is not a necessarily included lesser offense of’” CSC I. Thus, the court affirmed his conviction. Seegars argued that there was “insufficient evidence of sexual penetration” to support his conviction. The court disagreed, noting that the child “testified that Seegars used his fingers to touch the outside and the inside of her ‘middle area.’ She further stated that during the assault his fingers were ‘spreading apart’ or ‘opening’ her ‘middle area.’ She identified her vagina as her ‘middle area.’ In light of her testimony that there was touching inside and outside of her vagina, there was sufficient evidence of sexual penetration.” Seegars noted “weaknesses in the DNA evidence, cites his trial lawyer’s argument that there was only touching on the ‘outside’ of the vagina, and indicates and it ‘made no sense’ for him to sexually assault the girl within minutes after the girl’s mother and her girlfriend returned to the house.” As a result, he asserted that “the testimony supporting the conviction is ‘inherently incredible’ and should not be considered.” But the court disagreed, noting that in considering a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, it “‘reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and considers whether there was sufficient evidence to justify a rational trier of fact in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’”