Sufficiency of the evidence; People v. Harverson; People v. Reese; People v. Stiller; CSC IV; MCL 750.520e(1)(b); People v. Green; Sexual contact defined; MCL 750.520a(q); Intimate parts; MCL 750.520a(1)(f); Force or coercion; Sexual contact through surprise; MCL 750.520e(1)(b)(v); Denial of motion in limine & admission of the administrative orders as to defendant’s license suspension & surrender; People v. Orr; Relevance; MRE 401; MRE 403; People v. Feezel; People v. Crawford

Holding that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s CSC IV conviction, and that the trial court’s decision to admit the administrative orders as to his license suspension and surrender was within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes, the court affirmed. There was sufficient evidence he engaged in sexual contact. On the date of the incident, S went to defendant’s place of business for her regularly scheduled workout class. No one else was there. S “testified that she never indicated to defendant that she had pain radiating to the front of her ribs and that defendant never explained to her why he felt it was necessary to touch her breast.” There was also sufficient evidence that his intentional touching of S was done for sexual gratification. After defendant touched S’s breast, he told S “to flip over onto her stomach so that he could work on her back and then they would be done.” Once S flipped over, he “jumped onto her buttocks and straddled her.” S testified that she then felt him “rubbing his hard penis up her back getting off . . . .” Defendant rubbing his erect penis on S’s “back was sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could infer beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant touched [S’s] breast and buttocks for a sexual purpose.” Lastly, there was sufficient evidence that he “used force or coercion to commit the sexual act.” The court held that force “or coercion may occur by the element of surprise.” S agreed to have defendant massage her back, but he “failed to disclose that he was no longer licensed.” While massaging S, he reached under S’s “tank top and sports bra and touched her breast, and [S] then ‘flung’ defendant’s hand off. An expert testified that breast tissue is ‘off limits’ for male massage therapists.” Further, S testified that when she felt him “rubbing his penis on her back, she was surprised and said, ‘Oh my God, [J], what are you doing? I am uncomfortable,’” and he “jumped off.” S testified “that she would not have consented to defendant getting on her back if she knew he had an erection. Both expert witnesses testified that a massage therapist should never straddle a client’s backside, and that if sexual arousal occurs, then the massage should end immediately. From this evidence, a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant achieved sexual contact with” S through surprise.