This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
Filed September 7, 1999
Dakota County District Court
File No. K9972668
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 525 Park Street, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN
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
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
Appellant Lupe Rosillo challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
his conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. We affirm.
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
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.