Opinion ID: 2054296
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: The respondent finally argues that the trial justice's ruling should be overturned because there was insufficient evidence to establish that there was sexual penetration, a required element of first-degree sexual molestation. See § 11-37-8.1. We disagree. To prove first-degree child molestation sexual assault, an individual must engage in sexual penetration with a person fourteen (14) years of age or under. Section 11-37-8.1. Furthermore, sexual penetration is defined as any    intrusion, however slight, by any part ofa person's body or by any object into the genital or anal openings of another person's body. Section 11-37-1(8). This Court, however, previously has held that a `serious allegation' such as digital penetration requires `precise and specific testimony' to support it and that, therefore, evidence that a perpetrator touched the victim `in the vagina'    was not sufficient to draw an inference that would justify a finding of digital penetration beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Ryan B., 739 A.2d at 236 (quoting State v. McDonald, 602 A.2d 923, 925 (R.I.1992)). However, corroboration is not required for a conviction of first- or second-degree child molestation. See State v. Clark, 603 A.2d 1094, 1097 (R.I.1992). The hearing justice discussed the evidence upon which she relied in making her determination that penetration had occurred. The hearing justice stated, what was very telling to the [c]ourt was that this young child, while describing what happened to her, took her own hand and cupped her hand and turned it up and showed by her gesturing how [the respondent] had put his hand in her private area;    [s]he explained that [the respondent] was tapping her. She said she didn't like it. When she was asked what he was tapping her with, she very clearly said his finger went inside her privates. She proceeded to describe how he then put more of his fingers into her. The hearing justice found beyond a reasonable doubt that there was the requisite penetration for first-degree sexual molestation. Because our review of the record reveals that there was legally competent evidence to support the findings made by the hearing justice, we will not disturb the ruling of the Family Court.