This opinion will be unpublished and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
C6-99-503

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Daniel Paul Breeding,
Appellant.

Filed December 28, 1999
Affirmed
Harten, Judge

Nicollet County District Court
File No. K0-98-255

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Lyonel F. Norris, Assistant State Public Defender, 2829 University Avenue S.E., Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Robert A. Stanich, Assistant Attorney General, 525 Park Street, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55103-2106; and

Michael K. Riley, Sr., Nicollet County Attorney, 424 South Minnesota Avenue, P.O. Box 360, St. Peter, MN 56082 (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Amundson, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Harten, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

HARTEN, Judge

Appellant challenges his conviction of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree, arguing insufficiency of the evidence. Because there is sufficient evidence to support the conviction, we affirm.

FACTS

The families of the victim, B.J.D., age four, and of appellant Daniel Breeding were friends and often spent time together. B.J.D. and her sister stayed with appellant and his wife during a weekend in March 1998. After they returned home, B.J.D. told her sister and her mother that "Dan had made her touch his pee-pee" and that she "didn't want to but he made me." B.J.D. told her mother that "it wasn't a story." B.J.D. then described in child's terms what she had seen.

B.J.D.'s mother called the police department and reported the incident. The next day, a social worker with a specialty in child protection interviewed B.J.D. During the interview, B.J.D. consistently said it was appellant who made her touch his "pee-pee."

The state charged appellant with criminal sexual conduct in the second degree, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1(a) (1998). A jury found him guilty as charged. He challenges his conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to convict.

D E C I S I O N

Where there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our

review on appeal is limited to a painstaking analysis of 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). A reviewing court must further assume that "the jury believed the state's witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary." State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).

Appellant argues there was insufficient evidence at trial to support his conviction. The record indicates: (1) that appellant forced the victim to touch his penis and (2) that the victim was consistent in her reporting of the assault.

Appellant also argues that there was no physical evidence of any sexual activity. But a conviction may rest upon the testimony of a single credible witness. State v. Hill, 285 Minn. 518, 172 N.W.2d 406, 407 (1969). Appellant also argues that testimony of BJD, her mother, and the social worker was not credible. But the credibility of a witness is an issue for the jury. State v. Daniels, 361 N.W.2d 819, 826 (Minn. 1985). We assume that the jury believed these witnesses and conclude that the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient for the jury to convict.

Affirmed.