People of Michigan v. Elmer Sandford Klock

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 STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED June 11, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellee, 9:19 AM v No. 369878 Ionia Circuit Court ELMER SANDFORD KLOCK, LC No. 2023-018728-FH Defendant-Appellant. Before: BOONSTRA, P.J., and REDFORD and MARIANI, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant, Elmer Sandford Klock, appeals as of right his jury trial convictions of two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-II) (victim under 13), MCL 750.520c(1)(a) and MCL 750.520c(2)(b); and three counts of CSC-II (victim between 13 and 16 years of age with whom defendant shares a household), MCL 750.520c(1)(b)(i).1 The trial court sentenced defendant to serve 50 months’ to 15 years’ imprisonment on all counts, to run concurrently. On appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, arguing he did not act for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or another sexual purpose. Because a rational jury could find that all elements of the offenses were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This case arises out of the prolonged sexual abuse of KP, the victim, by her stepfather, defendant. Beginning when KP was 10 or 11 years old, defendant began regularly lying in bed with her in the mornings before school and grabbing her breasts both over and under her clothing. Defendant later expanded this practice to any time of day when KP was in her room. During some of these encounters, defendant moved his hand down between her legs. On at least one occasion defendant touched the lips of her genitalia with his hand. When KP started to grow body hair at 1 Defendant was acquitted of one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520b(2)(b); as well as one count of CSC-II, MCL 750.520c(1)(a) and MCL 750.520c(2)(b). -1- age 12 and started shaving, defendant began feeling KP’s legs and genital area to feel for unshaven hair, sometimes sending her back to the shower to shave again if he was unsatisfied. When KP was 13 years old and onward, defendant would slap, grab, and squeeze her buttocks and make comments regarding the size and qualities of her buttocks and breasts. KP kissed defendant on the lips regularly, though she testified that she did so because of pressure from defendant. At trial, defendant disputed that these acts occurred and testified that he was simply acting as a father showing paternal affection and looking after KP’s health. He repeatedly insisted that his actions had no sexual purpose. Testimony from KP’s mother generally aligned with defendant’s testimony. Defendant was convicted and sentenced, as stated earlier. Defendant now appeals. II. ANALYSIS Defendant argues that his convictions should be vacated because the evidence was insufficient for a reasonable jury to find that he acted for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or another sexual purpose. We disagree. We review de novo questions of statutory interpretation and claims of insufficient evidence in a criminal case. People v Isrow, 339 Mich App 522, 526; 984 NW2d 528 (2021). “A challenge to the sufficiency of evidence underpinning a conviction implicates due process.” People v Darga, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 363178); slip op at 6. “Due process requires the prosecutor to introduce evidence sufficient for a trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Jarrell, 344 Mich App 464, 480; 1 NW3d (2022). When reviewing a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, we must determine “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.” Id. at 480 (quotation marks, citation, and emphasis omitted). Furthermore, we are “required to draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support of the jury verdict.” People v Oros, 502 Mich 229, 239; 917 NW2d 559 (2018). Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from that evidence can be sufficient to prove the elements of a crime. Id. MCL 750.520c states, in relevant part, as follows: (1) A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the second deg