People of Michigan v. Thomas Adrian Drury

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 STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED June 11, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellee, 11:32 AM V No. 368495 Oakland Circuit Court THOMAS ADRIAN DRURY, LC No. 2021-278145-FC Defendant-Appellant. Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and O’BRIEN and ACKERMAN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right his jury-trial convictions of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520b(1)(a) (victim under 13); MCL 750.520b(2)(b), and one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520c(1)(a); MCL 750.520c(2)(b). We affirm. I. FACTS Defendant is the uncle of the complainant, who was six-years old at the time of the assault. According to the testimony given at defendant’s trial in September 2023, the complainant’s mother left the complainant in the care of her sister and defendant while the mother went to work on April 29, 2021. The complainant’s aunt went to an appointment, leaving defendant alone to care for the complainant, at which time the sexual abuse occurred. When the complainant’s mother picked the complainant up later in the day, the complainant disclosed that defendant sexually touched and penetrated her. The complainant’s mother contacted the police, and the complainant completed a sexual assault examination and a forensic interview. DNA testing detected defendant’s DNA on the complainant’s genitalia. Defendant testified on his own behalf at trial. He denied sexual activity with the victim. Regarding his interview with Detective Janeen Laity, he agreed that he told her “if something did happen, [he] genuinely [did not] remember.” He testified that he does remember now, and nothing happened, although he acknowledged that these statements conflict. He also admitted to telling Detective Laity that it was possible he touched the victim, but did not remember. He testified that he told Detective Laity that if the DNA established that he had “done something,” then he had -1- “done something.” Moreover, defendant admitted to having sexual thoughts about the victim, including thoughts about touching the victim’s vagina. The jury convicted defendant as stated above. This appeal followed. II. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE First, defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support that he penetrated the complainant beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree. This Court reviews de novo a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192, 195; 793 NW2d 120 (2010). Due process1 requires every element of a crime be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in order to sustain a criminal conviction. People v Hampton, 407 Mich 354, 366; 285 NW2d 284 (1979), citing In re Winship, 397 US 358, 364; 90 S Ct 1068; 25 L Ed 2d 368 (1970). When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and this Court must consider whether, based on that evidence, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Smith- Anthony, 494 Mich 669, 676; 837 NW2d 415 (2013). Direct and circumstantial evidence, as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, are considered to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction. People v Hardiman, 466 Mich 417, 429; 646 NW2d 158 (2002). Under MCL 750.520b(1)(a), “[a] person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree if he or she engages in sexual penetration with another person” when “[t]hat other person is under 13 years of age.” Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence that he sexually penetrated the complainant because the complainant’s testimony that defendant “peed in my private” and “peed in my vulva” was insufficient to establish penetration. Penetration is more than mere contact. People v Payne, 90 Mich App 713, 722; 282 NW2d 456 (1979). MCL 750.520a(r) defines sexual penetration as “sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, anal intercourse, or any other intrusion, however slight, of any part of a person’s body or of any object into the genital or anal openings of another person’s body, but emission of semen is not required.” In this case, the co