CSC IV under MCL 750.520e(1)(a); Motion for a directed verdict; Credibility; People v Mehall; Perpetrator identification; Lighting conditions

Holding that the victim’s (PM) testimony was sufficient to allow “a rational jury to conclude that defendant was the” perpetrator, the court affirmed the denial of his motion for a directed verdict. He was convicted of CSC IV under MCL 750.520e(1)(a). He did not challenge “that sexual contact occurred or that PM was 15 at the time of the assault.” Rather, he contended “that the ‘[lighting] conditions did not allow her to adequately identify the perpetrator.’” The court noted that in asserting that those conditions made “PM’s identification ‘implausible,’” defendant asked it to make a credibility determination. “But courts may not make credibility determinations when deciding or reviewing a motion for a directed verdict.” PM testified “that, after she awoke to someone groping her breast and kissing her, she opened her eyes and saw defendant assaulting her. She acknowledged the early morning hour and dark lighting conditions but asserted that the light in the adjoining kitchen was on, enabling her to identify with certainty that defendant was her assailant.” The court noted that whether her assertion “that she was able to see defendant assaulting her” was credible given the lighting conditions “was a question for the finder of fact.”