AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted for third-degree criminal sexual penetration (CSP), which was enhanced due to his habitual offender status. The conviction was based on evidence that the Defendant inserted his penis into the Victim's vagina unlawfully and through the use of physical force or violence. The Defendant argued that the Victim had consented to the act.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his CSP conviction, maintaining that the Victim had consented to the act.
• Appellee (State): Argued that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for CSP, emphasizing the unlawful and violent nature of the act.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for third-degree criminal sexual penetration.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for third-degree criminal sexual penetration.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Timothy L. Garcia with Judges Cynthia A. Fry and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's determination that the Defendant committed the act of CSP unlawfully and through the use of physical force or violence (para 2). The Court emphasized that the jury was free to reject the Defendant's version of events, including his claim that the Victim had consented, and that contrary evidence supporting acquittal does not provide a basis for reversal. The decision to affirm was based on the standard of review for substantial evidence and the jury's role in resolving conflicts in testimony and determining the weight and credibility of the evidence (para 2).