 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Campbell12/19/2000
UNPUBLISHED
Defendant was convicted by a jury, in two consolidated cases, of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC I), MCL 750.520b; MSA 28.788(2). He was sentenced to concurrent terms of fifteen to thirty years' imprisonment. Defendant appeals as of right both convictions and sentences. We affirm.
Defendant first argues that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to sustain his CSC I convictions. We disagree. When determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to sustain a conviction, this Court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 515; 489 NW2d 748 (1992), amended 441 Mich 1201 (1992); People v Godbold, 230 Mich App 508, 522; 585 NW2d 13 (1998).
In relevant part, the CSC I statute, MCL 750.520b; MSA 28.788(2), provides:
(1) A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree if he or she engages in sexual penetration with another person and if any of the following circumstances exists:
(b) That other person is at least 13 but less than 16 years of age and any of the following:
(i) The actor is a member of the same household as the victim.
(ii) the actor is related to the victim by blood or affinity to the fourth degree.
(iii) The actor is in a position of authority over the victim and used this authority to coerce the victim to submit.
(e) The actor is armed with a weapon . . .
(f) The actor causes personal injury to the victim and force or coercion is used to accomplish sexual penetration . . . .
To convict defendant of CSC I, the jury had to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt under one of these three theories.
Upon review of the record, we conclude that testimony was presented that, if believed by the jury, would prove all elements of each of the above statutory subsections. The victim testified to the separate events in specific detail and the victim's family members and therapist testified that she suffered from nightmares, that she suffered physical and mental anguish as a result of the assaults, and that her behavior changed dramatically after the assaults. Although defendant contends that the victim's testimony was insufficient because he contradicted her testimony in interviews with the police, contradictory evidence should not necessarily be equated with insufficient evidence:
he question is not whether there was conflicting evidence, but rather whether there was evidence that the jury, sitting as the trier of fact, could choose to believe and, if it did so believe that evidence, that the evidence would justify convicting defendant . . . . . If the jury chose to believe the victim's testimony, they would be justified in convicting defendant of . . . criminal sexual conduct in the first degree. [People v Smith, 205 Mich App 69, 71; 517 NW2d 255 (1994), aff'd sub nom People v Peterson, 450 Mich 349; 537 NW2d 857 (1995), amended 450 Mich 1212 (1995).]
Questions of credibility are for the trier of fact to resolve and this Court will not resolve them anew on appeal. People v Avant, 235 Mich App 499, 506; 597 NW2d 864 (1999).
Here, because evidence was presented meeting each element of the crimes under each CSC I theory from which a rational trier of fact could conclude that defendant engaged in two counts of CSC I, sufficient evidence supported defendant's convictions.
Defendant next contends that he received ineffective assistance of cou
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|