Opinion ID: 795956
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sufficiency of the evidence to support Count I

Text: 50 Seymour next contends that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a guilty verdict on Count I. We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, and consider whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Tocco, 200 F.3d 401, 424 (6th Cir.2000) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)) (emphasis in original). All of the evidence admitted at trial, including improperly admitted evidence, may be considered in determining whether sufficient evidence supports a guilty verdict. United States v. Quinn, 901 F.2d 522, 529-32 (6th Cir.1990). In addition, [c]ircumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction and such evidence need not remove every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. United States v. Spearman, 186 F.3d 743, 746 (6th Cir.1999) (citations and quotation marks omitted). 51 Seymour has limited his insufficiency claim to the contention that there was no evidence of penetration of the genital opening of C.P. Section 2241(c) of Title 18, the statute that governs Count I, prohibits knowingly engag[ing] in a sexual act with another person who has not attained the age of 12 years. A sexual act is defined as the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening of another by a hand or finger or by any object. 18 U.S.C. § 2246(2)(C) (emphasis added). 52 At trial, C.P. provided evidence on direct examination regarding the alleged sexual assault from which a reasonable juror could infer that she had been penetrated by Seymour's finger. She testified that Seymour touched me between my legs where you would wipe after you go . . . pee, and she answered yes to questions like [d]id he touch you inside of your underpants and it was actually his fingers right on your bare skin? Although C.P. testified on cross-examination that she could not remember whether Seymour went inside her, a reasonable juror could still credit her statements made on direct examination. See United States v. Sanders, 404 F.3d 980, 987 (6th Cir.2005) (holding that certain discrepancies in a witness's testimony, which were elicited during cross-examination, were irrelevant to the sufficiency of the evidence analysis because they improperly ask us to weigh the evidence or to assess [the witness's] credibility). 53 C.P.'s testimony, in combination with the evidence provided by D.H., D.T., and L.M., was sufficient to permit a reasonable juror to infer that C.P. was penetrated because D.H., D.T., and L.M. all testified that Seymour penetrated each of them during similar sexual assaults. A reasonable juror—who credited C.P.'s testimony on direct examination—could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Seymour also penetrated her genital opening with his finger. We therefore conclude that the evidence of penetration was sufficient to support Seymour's conviction on Count I.