Sufficiency of the evidence; CSC I under MCL 750.520b(2)(b); CSC II under MCL 750.520c(1)(a); Disseminating sexually explicit matter to a minor; Accosting a child for an immoral purpose; Effect of complainant’s testimony; Claim the prosecution’s failure to investigate denied defendant a fair trial; Alleged Brady v Maryland violation

Holding that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant-Redd’s convictions, and finding no merit in his claim that the prosecution’s failure to investigate denied him a fair trial, the court affirmed. He was convicted of CSC I, CSC II, disseminating sexually explicit matter to a minor, and accosting a child for an immoral purpose. He contended that the complainant’s (AP) testimony was too vague to support his convictions. The trial court in his bench trial found “AP’s testimony alleging several variations of sexual penetration—finger to genital opening, penis to mouth, mouth to genital opening—credible.” The testimony addressed each CSC I element for multiple counts of CSC I, and the court does not interfere with the fact-finder’s credibility assessments. As to CSC II, the alleged sexual contact was “the intentional touching of AP’s breasts.” The trial court found credible AP’s testimony that “Redd touched her breasts with his hands and mouth, often while other sexual interactions occurred.” The court noted that the trial court “was permitted to make reasonable inferences about the purpose of the sexual contact.” The trial court also “relied on AP’s testimony that Redd showed her pornography in finding Redd guilty of violating MCL 722.675 by knowingly presenting a harmful sexually explicit performance to AP when she was a minor.” The court noted that “AP testified Redd would try to make her watch explicit videos of people engaging in sexual acts on his phone. He did this ‘multiple’ times but not every time he forced her to perform sexual acts with him.” In addition, the trial court found that “Redd violated MCL 750.145a by telling AP she had to perform sexual acts if she wanted to go to her cousin’s house.” Evidence was presented that he “would enter AP’s room and ask AP if she wanted to go see her cousins, ‘or somethin’ like that.’ If she said yes, [he] would tell her: ‘you gotta do somethin’ first,’ indicating Redd solicited AP with the specific intent to induce or force AP to ‘do somethin’ in exchange for some benefit, like going to see her cousins. AP’s testimony makes clear that ‘somethin’ referred to” sexual acts.