PEOPLE OF MI V KEVIN WICKMAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
May 1, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 276598
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2006-206877-FH
KEVIN WICKMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Markey, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals by right his jury trial convictions of three counts of second-degree
criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520c(1)(a). Defendant was sentenced to three concurrent
terms of 48 months to 15 years’ imprisonment with credit for 34 days. We affirm.
Defendant contends that the prosecutor presented insufficient evidence to sustain his
convictions. In the alternative, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion
for directed verdict.
Specifically, defendant argues that none of the alleged incidents were intentional, done
for a sexual purpose, nor could they be reasonably be construed as having been done for a sexual
purpose. Defendant notes that he, the victim, the victim’s mother, and a friend of the victim’s
mother are deaf. Therefore, defendant asserts that given the difficulty in interpreting the actions
and conversations of a deaf person, his actions could have easily been misinterpreted by a
detective that interviewed him and by the deaf friend of the victim’s mother.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court views the evidence in a light most
favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the
essential elements of the crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Wolfe, 440
Mich 508, 515; 489 NW2d 748 (1992), amended 441 Mich 1201 (1992). We are mindful that it
is the jury’s function to assess the credibility of witnesses and to weigh the evidence. Id. at 514515. The standard of review for the directed verdict motion is substantially the same. We
review the decision on the motion de novo “and consider the evidence presented by the
prosecution in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of
fact could find that the essential elements of the crime charged were proved beyond a reasonable
doubt.” People v Mayhew, 236 Mich App 112, 124; 600 NW2d 370 (1999). Circumstantial
evidence, and reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence, may be sufficient to sustain a
-1-
conviction. People v Plummer, 229 Mich App 293, 299; 581 NW2d 753 (1998). And, the
victim’s testimony alone may be sufficient. MCL 750.520h.
MCL 750.520c(1)(a) provides that “[a] person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the
second degree if the person engages in sexual contact with another person and . . . [t]hat other
person is under 13 years of age.” “‘Sexual contact’ includes the intentional touching of the
victim’s or actor’s intimate parts or the intentional touching of the clothing covering the
immediate area of the victim’s or actor’s intimate parts, if that intentional touching can
reasonably be construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, done for a
sexual purpose, or in a sexual manner . . . .” MCL 750.520a(n). The clear language of the
statute provides a reasonable person standard to guide a jury’s determination of the purpose of
the contact. People v Piper, 223 Mich App 642, 647; 567 NW2d 483 (1997). The jury is limited
to determining whether the defined conduct, when viewed objectively, could reasonably be for a
sexual purpose.
The prosecution’s theory of the case was that defendant intentionally touched the victim’s
breasts or the clothing covering that area, defendant intentionally made the victim touch his
genital area or the clothing covering that area, and that defendant intentionally touched the
victim’s genital area or the clothing covering that area. The prosecution had to prove that
defendant did each of these things for a sexual purpose or that the touching could reasonably be
construed as having been done for sexual purposes. MCL 750.520a(n). Further, the victim had
to be less than 13 years of age at the time of the alleged acts. MCL 750.520c(1)(a).
At trial, there was testimony that defendant engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with
the victim on several occasions. It is undisputed that the victim was nine years old when the
alleged inappropriate sexual conduct took place.
There was evidence presented at trial that while the victim was sitting in a chair in the
living room, defendant sat next to her, put his arm around her neck, and put his right hand on her
breast. The victim felt uncomfortable. This evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that defendant intentionally touched the victim’s breast or clothing covering
that area.
The testimony at trial also indicated that on another occasion, the victim was sitting on
the couch in the living room and defendant pulled the victim’s foot over and put it in his lap.
The victim testified that she could feel “it’ a little bit. She testified that her foot touched
defendant’s private area and that “it” was hard. This evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that defendant intentionally made the victim touch his genital area or the
clothing covering that area.
Finally, there was evidence that defendant intentionally touched the victim’s genital area
or clothing covering that area. Defendant was using the computer. He was on the website
“Perfect Match.” He wanted the victim to sit on his lap. The victim testified that she sat on his
lap in his private area. She felt his private part. “It” was hard and she felt uncomfortable.
Other testimony revealed that, on one occasion, defendant forced the victim to sit on his
lap while they were riding in their van going on an outing. The victim testified that she felt
something hard in his private area and that “it” felt funny and made her feel uncomfortable. The
-2-
victim’s mother and the mother’s friend acknowledged that defendant had the victim sit on his
lap in the van.
Another incident occurred in the kitchen of the family home. Defendant picked the
victim up and bounced her up and down. His hands were on her buttocks and her legs were
wrapped around his waist, so she was on his abdomen. She told him to stop, but he ignored her.
The bouncing lasted for 1 or 2 minutes. The victim testified that this made her feel
uncomfortable. A friend of the victim’s mother saw the incident in the kitchen as well.
On appeal, defendant maintains that his actions and statements were misinterpreted, and
that there was insufficient evidence to support that the incidents at issue were intentionally done,
for a sexual purpose. We disagree. Viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a
reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence that defendant acted for purposes of sexual
gratification or with a sexual purpose. There was evidence that defendant had sexual thoughts
about young girls, and thought about children in the nude, including his daughter. One of the
acts testified about at trial revealed that defendant made the victim sit on his lap while reviewing
a computer site entitled “Perfect Match.” Other evidence further revealed that defendant spoke
inappropriately to the victim about finding him a woman to date and about her older brother’s
“jacking off.” This evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant’s
intentional conduct toward the victim had a sexual purpose.
Because there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to conclude beyond a
reasonable doubt that defendant committed three counts of second-degree criminal sexual
conduct, the trial court correctly denied defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.
We affirm.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Jane E. Markey
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
