Sufficient evidence to support a CSC I conviction under MCL 750.520b(2)(b); “Sexual penetration” (MCL 750.520a(r)); Prosecutorial error; Questioning of an expert witness; MRE 702; People v Thorpe; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to make a meritless objection; Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE)

The court held that there was sufficient evidence of penetration to support defendant’s CSC I conviction. Further, defendant’s claim of prosecutorial error in soliciting an expert witness’s opinion was “unsupported by the record and contrary to Thorpe and MRE 702.” And defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s questioning of the expert. Defendant asserted that the prosecution did not “present physical or medical evidence to establish” the penetration element of the offense. The complainant stated that “defendant ‘touched [her] private spot’ with his hand. She specifically described contact with the external genitalia at the site of urination and clarified that [his] hand was inside her underwear, resulting in physical discomfort. [She] promptly disclosed this conduct to her mother, reporting that defendant had touched her ‘privates.’” In addition, a “subsequent forensic medical examination conducted by” witness-V (a family nurse practitioner and SANE) “revealed two distinct lacerations adjacent to the vaginal introitus. [V] opined that the injuries could not have resulted absent an object or body part passing through the labial folds[.]” The court concluded that “this testimonial and physical evidence provided an evidentiary basis from which a rational trier of fact could conclude that the element of penetration was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Defendant’s prosecutorial error claim related to the questioning of V. But the court found that “the prosecutor did not pose a direct question soliciting [V’s] opinion on the ultimate legal issue of whether complainant was sexually assaulted.” Further, the transcript did “not support any inference that the prosecutor elicited, or that [V] provided, an expert opinion on the occurrence of a sexual assault.” Finally, V’s “conclusions were firmly rooted in objective forensic evidence, specifically, the documented lacerations observed during the SANE examination—as well as in complainant’s medical and psychosocial history, which she obtained prior to the physical evaluation. These factors satisfy the criteria for admissible expert opinion under both Thorpe and MRE 702.” Affirmed.