Opinion ID: 1919281
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: First Degree Sexual Assault

Text: In February 2007, the State charged Davis with first degree sexual assault on or about February 24, 1993, to February 24, 2002. In 1993, when this offense initially occurred, a person committed first degree sexual assault if they subjected another person to sexual penetration [when] the actor is nineteen years of age or older and the victim is less than sixteen years of age. [3] Sexual penetration included sexual intercourse in its ordinary meaning, cunnilingus, fellatio, anal intercourse, or any intrusion, however slight, of any part of the actor's or victim's body or any object manipulated by the actor into the genital or anal openings of the victim's body which can be reasonably construed as being for nonmedical or nonhealth purposes. [4] Davis first contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for first degree sexual assault. He argues that the State failed to present corroborating evidence and that the victim's testimony is not credible. This argument conflicts with Nebraska's penal statutes. Davis apparently overlooks the 1989 enactment of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-2028 (Reissue 1995). Since 1989, the State has not been required to corroborate a victim's testimony in cases of first degree sexual assault. [5] So, the victim's testimony alone is sufficient if believed by the finder of fact. Davis' argument fails. Davis' second claim, that the victim's testimony was unreliable, also fails. Remember, we do not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence. [6] A conviction will be affirmed, in the absence of prejudicial error, if the properly admitted evidence, viewed and construed most favorably to the State, is sufficient to support the conviction. [7] Only where evidence lacks sufficient probative value as a matter of law may an appellate court set aside a guilty verdict as unsupported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. [8] And our standard of review for criminal cases requires substantial deference to the factual findings made by the jury. [9] The victim testified that when she was 4, Davis digitally penetrated her vagina while riding in a vehicle with other family members. Because there was sexual penetration, the incident fulfills all the elements of first degree sexual assault. While Davis denied these allegations, a jury determined otherwise. We conclude the State presented sufficient evidence to prove the first degree sexual assault conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.