People of Michigan v. Martell Hemphill

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED

June 26, 2018 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 337902

Wayne Circuit Court MARTELL HEMPHILL, LC No. 16-005677-01-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: MURPHY, P.J., and JANSEN and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of child sexually abusive activity (CSAA), MCL 750.145c(2), and accosting a child for immoral purposes, MCL 750.145a, but it could not reach a verdict on a charge of assault with intent to commit second-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520g(2).1 He was sentenced as a fourth habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to 3 to 20 years’ imprisonment for the CSAA conviction and 2 to 15 years’ imprisonment for the accosting conviction. Defendant appeals as of right, and we affirm.

Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence supporting the CSAA and accosting verdicts beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby resulting in a deprivation of his constitutional due process rights. Defendant does not contend that there was an absence of testimony with respect to establishing the elements of the offenses. Indeed, defendant does not even cite the elements of CSAA and accosting a minor for immoral purposes, let alone build an argument around the elements. Rather, defendant’s entire argument on appeal is that the testimony of the 11-year-old female victim was not corroborated or credible, given that she was thoroughly impeached by numerous inconsistent statements, had a motive to fabricate, and acknowledged some lies. Therefore, according to defendant, there was insufficient evidence to support the verdicts.2

Defendant’s argument lacks merit, as it goes to the weight of the evidence and the credibility of a witness. In People v Palmer, 392 Mich 370, 375-376; 220 NW2d 393 (1974), the Michigan Supreme Court explained:

In a criminal trial the burden is on the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on every element of the crime charged. On appeal from a conviction a defendant may request the appellate court to determine if the prosecution fulfilled this burden. In conducting this review the appellate court must remember that the jury is the sole judge of the facts. It is the function of the jury alone to listen to testimony, weigh the evidence and decide the questions of fact. In determining the facts the jury may draw reasonable inferences from the facts established by either direct or circumstantial evidence.

Juries, not appellate courts, see and hear witnesses and are in a much better position to decide the weight and credibility to be given to their testimony. Where sufficient evidence exists, which may be believed by the jury, to sustain a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the decision of the jury should not be disturbed by an appellate court. [Citations omitted; see also People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 514-515; 489 NW2d 748 (1992); People v Mikulen, __ Mich App __, __; __ NW2d __ (2018), slip op at 3 (“A jury, and not an appellate court, observes the witnesses and listens to their testimony; therefore, an appellate court must not interfere with the jury’s role in assessing the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.”).]

Here, even though there was a basis to question the victim’s credibility and corroboration shortcomings, the jury ultimately chose to believe her testimony and weighed that testimony in favor of a finding that the prosecution proved the CSAA and accosting offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. And we will not disturb the jury’s determinations of weight and credibility. Moreover, we would note that despite the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the young victim’s testimony, they tended to concern peripheral matters and not the core acts of defendant’s wrongdoing.3

Affirmed.

/s/ William B. Murphy /s/ Kathleen Jansen /s/ Amy Ronayne Krause juror could not believe the testimony, or was so seriously impeached that it was deprived of all probative value. People v Lemmon, 456 Mich 625, 643; 576 NW2d 129 (1998); People v Bosca, 310 Mich App 1, 13; 871 NW2d 307 (2015).