Sufficiency of the evidence for convictions of CSC I under MCL 750.520b(1)(a) & CSC II under MCL 750.520c(1)(b)(i); People v Bailey; People v Eisen; Credibility; People v Unger

Holding that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s CSC I and II convictions, the court affirmed. He was convicted of CSC I under MCL 750.520b(1)(a) (sexual penetration of a victim less than 13 years of age) and CSC II under MCL 750.520c(1)(b)(i) (sexual contact with a victim between the ages of 13 and 16 within the same household). The victim was his stepdaughter. At trial, his “daughter also testified to experiencing similar sexual contact defendant.” On appeal, he challenged his convictions based on the reliability of their testimonies. He claimed “that their memories were unreliable, and that they had reasons to fabricate the allegations against him.” He further asserted that their “statements were undermined by his expert witness testimony regarding inaccurate memories of sexual assault victims. But these arguments seek to undermine the credibility of the witnesses and do not address whether the witness testimony provided a sufficient evidentiary basis upon which the jury could find defendant guilty.” In addition, the court held that sufficient evidence supported both convictions. It is well-settled “‘that a complainant’s testimony regarding a defendant’s commission of sexual acts is sufficient evidence to support a’” CSC I conviction. And a victim’s testimony about “their age during the criminal sexual acts is also sufficient evidence to support the age element of a CSC conviction.” In this case, the “stepdaughter testified that defendant digitally penetrated her sometime after her 12th birthday but before she turned 13 years old. She also testified that [he] digitally penetrated her again after she turned 13 years old. Taken together, this testimony provided sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that defendant’s conduct satisfied the elements of MCL 750.520b(1)(a) and” 750.520c(1)(b)(i). The court noted that it will not interfere with a jury’s determinations as to the weight of the evidence and witness credibility.