In Re the Marriage of: William P. Rolfe, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, vs. Janice J. Rolfe, Respondent.

 STATE OF MINNESOTA
 IN COURT OF APPEALS
 C1-99-19

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Lupe Rosillo,
Appellant.

 Filed September 7, 1999
 Affirmed
 Schumacher, Judge

Dakota County District Court
File No. K9972668

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 525 Park Street, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55103; and

James C. Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, Debra E. Schmidt, Assistant County Attorney, Dakota County Judicial Center, 1560 West Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033 (for respondent)

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Susan J. Andrews, Assistant Public Defender, 2829 University Avenue Southeast, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge, Toussaint, Chief Judge, and Schumacher, Judge.

 U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

 SCHUMACHER, Judge

Appellant Lupe Rosillo challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. We affirm.

 FACTS

Rosillo was charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(a) (1996). He was accused of sexually abusing four-year-old V.P., his live-in girlfriend's daughter. V.P. was generally consistent in her accounts to her relatives, to a social worker, and in her testimony at trial that Rosillo forced her to perform oral sex and made her watch a "sex movie." During her interview with the social worker, V.P. also alleged vaginal penetration by Rosillo and stated that no one else had ever done these things to her. Rosillo testified that he believed V.P. was sexually abused, but denied being the abuser. He argued that V.P.'s mother had motivation to convince V.P. to lie and that V.P.'s father, or someone in his household, was the more likely abuser. The jury convicted Rosillo, and he appeals.

D E C I S I O N

Rosillo's appeal is based on his claim of insufficiency of the evidence. Where there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our review on appeal is limited to analyzing the record to determine whether the evidence, "when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did." State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989). We must assume the jury believed the state's witnesses and discounted contrary evidence. State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).

Rosillo claims the evidence in this case is insufficient to support his conviction. The evidence, however, includes testimony from the victim herself identifying Rosillo as the perpetrator. Her story remained consistent throughout her different interviews. The jury determines V.P.'s credibility as a witness and the weight to be given her testimony. State v. Engholm, 290 N.W.2d 780, 784 (Minn. 1980). Rosillo challenged V.P.'s credibility at trial, but the jury apparently believed V.P. We must assume the jury believed V.P. The fact that Rosillo blamed someone else does not undermine the jury's verdict. The jury had ample evidence to convict Rosillo.

Affirmed.