People of Michigan v. Alfred William Lane

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED June 24, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellee, 11:19 AM v No. 367584 Monroe Circuit Court ALFRED WILLIAM LANE, LC No. 2022-247159-FH Defendant-Appellant. Before: GARRETT, P.J., and RICK and FEENEY, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial convictions for two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I), MCL 750.520b(1)(f) and (2)(a) (use of force or coercion, causing personal injury). The trial court sentenced defendant as a second-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.10, to serve concurrent sentences of 216 to 300 months (18 to 25 years) in prison. We affirm. I. FACTS On February 3, 2022, a police officer responded to a call about a distressed female, later identified as BS, in Monroe, Michigan. BS sought help from the police, reporting that she had been sexually assaulted by a man she then knew as “AJ” and later identified as defendant. BS had been staying at the home of Gina Evans in Monroe, where people congregated to use drugs. At that house, located on Conant Avenue, BS met defendant. According to BS, Evans asked BS to go with defendant to get some drugs. BS left the Conant Avenue house with defendant, and they walked to a house on Norwood Drive, where Terry Johnson lived. Calvin Johnson walked with them, but he left to go to his home before BS and defendant arrived at the Norwood Drive location. After BS and defendant arrived at the Norwood Drive house, BS went into a back bedroom to wait for the drugs. She described defendant coming into the room and sexually assaulting her by penetrating her both vaginally and anally against her will. BS testified that she repeatedly told defendant “no.” Defendant testified at trial, and he stated that BS and Calvin had sex at the Norwood Drive house after Calvin arrived there. Defendant admitted that he also had sex with BS, but he stated -1- that it was consensual. Calvin testified at trial to confirm that he had sex with BS. Terry testified that he heard defendant and BS having sex in the back bedroom of the Norwood Drive house, but he stated that he did not hear any screams or yells for help. Defendant was convicted and sentenced, as stated earlier. Defendant now appeals. II. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE Defendant first argues that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to convict him of both counts of CSC-I. We disagree. A. PRESERVATION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW A defendant does not need to take any “special steps” to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. People v Hawkins, 245 Mich App 439, 457; 628 NW2d 105 (2001). We review de novo a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. People v Speed, 331 Mich App 328, 331; 952 NW2d 550 (2020). In determining whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and consider whether it was sufficient to justify a rational trier of fact in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Harris, 495 Mich 120, 126; 845 NW2d 477 (2014). But more importantly, the standard of review is deferential: a reviewing court is required to draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support of the jury verdict. The scope of review is the same whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from that evidence can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of a crime. It is for the trier of fact, not the appellate court, to determine what inferences may be fairly drawn from the evidence and to determine the weight to be accorded those inferences. [People v Oros, 502 Mich 229, 239; 917 NW2d 559 (2018) (quotation marks, citations, and alteration omitted).] B. ANALYSIS “The sufficient evidence requirement is a part of every criminal defendant’s due process rights.” People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 514; 489 NW2d 748 (1992). “Due process requires that, to sustain a conviction, the evidence must show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Harverson, 291 Mich App 171, 175;