 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Dahlstrom12/1/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Before: Whitbeck, C.J., and Saad and O'Connell, JJ.
Defendant appeals his jury trial convictions of one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC I), MCL 750.520b(1)(f) (causing personal injury to the victim and using force or coercion to accomplish sexual penetration), two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC II), MCL 750.520c(1)(f) (causing personal injury to the victim and using force or coercion to accomplish sexual contact), and one count of telephone line cutting, MCL 750.540. Defendant was sentenced as a second habitual offender, MCL 769.10, to concurrent terms of twenty to sixty years in prison for the CSC I conviction, 15 to 221/2 years in prison for each CSC II conviction, and two to three years in prison for the telephone line cutting conviction. We affirm.
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Defendant argues that the prosecutor presented insufficient evidence at trial to sustain his CSC I and CSC II convictions. We disagree. Appellate courts review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. People v Lueth, 253 Mich App 670, 680; 660 NW2d 322 (2002).
A person has committed CSC I under MCL 750.520b(1)(f) if the person "(1) causes personal injury to the victim, (2) engages in sexual penetration with the victim, and (3) uses force or coercion to accomplish the sexual penetration." People v Nickens, 470 Mich 622, 629; 685 NW2d 657 (2004). MCL 750.520a(l) defines "personal injury" as "bodily injury, disfigurement, mental anguish, chronic pain, pregnancy, disease, or loss or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ." Here, the victim testified that defendant punched her in the head, choked her, held her down, ripped at her breasts, threatened to kill her, forced her legs apart, and digitally penetrated her. Both the neighbor from whom plaintiff asked for help after the attack and the Caro police officer who responded to the scene testified that following the attack the victim had red marks on her body. Further, the doctor who examined the victim testified that she had facial swelling, along with tenderness, bruising, and redness on other parts of her body. The victim also testified that, after the attack, she felt humiliated and ashamed and that she required counseling and psychiatric medications to help her stay calm and focused. Clearly, a rational trier of fact could find that the prosecutor proved the essential elements of CSC I beyond a reasonable doubt.
With regard to defendant's CSC II convictions, the statute, MCL 750.520c(1), states in relevant part:
A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree if the person engages in sexual contact with another person and if any of the following circumstances exists:
(f) The actor causes personal injury to the victim and force or coercion is used to accomplish the sexual contact. Force or coercion includes, but is not limited to, any of the circumstances listed in section 520b(1)(f)(i) to (v). [MCL 750.520(1).]
MCL 750.520a(n) defines "sexual contact" as:
the intentional touching of the victim's or actor's intimate parts or the intentional touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of the victim's or actor's intimate parts, if that intentional touching can reasonably be construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, done for a sexual purpose, or in a sexual manner for:
(i) Revenge.
(ii) To inflict humiliation.
(iii) Out of anger. [MCL 750.520a(n).]
Defendant contends that the prosecutor failed to establish that he touched the victim's breasts for the purpose of sexual a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|