Sufficiency of evidence; CSC I; MCL 750.520b(1)(a); Sexual penetration; MCL 750.520a(r); People v Bailey; Great weight of the evidence; People v Lemmon; Other-acts evidence; MCL 768.27a; MRE 403; People v Watkins; Prosecutorial error; Appeal to sympathy; People v Dalessandro; Vouching; People v Bahoda; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Trial strategy; People v Davis; Sentencing; OV 3; MCL 777.33(1)(e); OV 8; MCL 777.38(1)(a); People v Barrera; OV 9; MCL 777.39(1)(c); Correction of the sentencing investigation report (SIR); People v Baskerville

The court held that sufficient evidence supported defendant’s CSC I convictions, the other-acts testimony was admissible, his prosecutorial-error and ineffective-assistance claims failed, and sentencing-scoring errors did not require resentencing. He was convicted of multiple CSC I counts involving AM, who was under 13. The trial court admitted another child’s (JK) other-acts testimony under MCL 768.27a and assessed challenged OVs at sentencing. On appeal, the court first held that the evidence was sufficient because AM testified she felt defendant penetrate her anus and place his penis in her mouth, JK corroborated the blindfold assault, and “a complainant’s testimony regarding a defendant’s commission of sexual acts is sufficient evidence to support a” CSC I conviction. It rejected his great-weight challenge because any impeachment of AM’s testimony did not deprive it of all probative value, and JK’s testimony supplied “circumstantial corroboration.” The court next held that JK’s testimony was admissible under MCL 768.27a and MRE 403 because the assaults involved the same ages, same time period, and “same type of alleged behavior as to the sexual act.” It rejected defendant’s prosecutorial-error claims, reasoning that the challenged sympathy comment was a single statement made in the context of asking the jury to decide the case “based on the proofs presented,” and the prosecutor did not vouch because the comments about childhood memory were reasonable inferences from the evidence. The court also held that defense counsel’s questioning of an officer reflected a reasonable strategy to attack AM’s credibility and the prosecution’s motives, and counsel was not ineffective for failing to make futile objections. Finally, the court held that OV 8 was properly scored because defendant moved AM and JK “away from the presence or observation of others.” While OVs 3 and 9 were scored incorrectly in part, the scoring errors did not change the guidelines range. Affirmed and remanded for ministerial correction of the SIR.