Great weight of the evidence; Bench trial; Witness credibility; Conflicting testimony; Adequacy of factual findings; MCR 6.403; People v Johnson (On Rehearing); People v Armstrong

The court held that defendant’s CSC II convictions were not against the great weight of the evidence because the trial court reasonably resolved the conflicting testimony by crediting the child-victim and was not required to specifically explain why it found another witness less credible. The victim (MJ) testified that defendant repeatedly touched her intimate areas during “play fighting” when she was between nine and eleven years old. Her grandmother (M), defendant’s former girlfriend, disputed significant portions of MJ’s account, including whether MJ was ever alone with defendant. After the bench trial, the trial court found MJ credible, found M only partially credible, convicted defendant of CSC II, and acquitted him of CSC I. On appeal, defendant argued that the conflicting testimony and the trial court’s failure to explain its credibility determination made the convictions against the great weight of the evidence. The court disagreed. “The presence of conflicting testimony does not automatically establish that the evidence preponderates so heavily against the verdict that it would be a miscarriage of justice to allow it to stand.” Some of M’s testimony also supported portions of MJ’s and her mother’s accounts, and M’s testimony did not eliminate the possibility that defendant and MJ were alone together during the relevant period. More importantly, the trial court “was aware of the discrepancies” between MJ and her mother’s testimony and that of M, and “made credibility decisions to resolve these discrepancies.” A bench-trial court must state its factual findings and legal conclusions, but it need not specifically explain each element or every credibility determination where the record shows it understood the issues and correctly applied the law. Because “[i]ssues of witness credibility are for the factfinder,” and the trial court reasonably supported its credibility findings from the evidence, the convictions were not against the great weight of the evidence. Affirmed.