Following a trial by jury, Phillip David Lipscomb was convicted of one count of child molestation. On appeal, Lipscomb contends that 1 the evidence was insufficient, 2 the trial court erred in denying a motion to strike a juror for cause, and 3 the trial court erred in denying a motion for mistrial when the State during closing arguments made remarks that he alleges were improper. For the reasons set forth infra , we affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict,1 the record reflects that on the evening of April 14, 2010, Lipscomb was playing video games at the home of his brother and sister-in-law. Around 8:00 p.m., Lipscomb’s brother and sister-in-law decided to run two quick errands and to leave their children, 3-year-old K. L. the victim and 5-year-old N. L., with Lipscomb because the children had just been put in bed. When the parents returned approximately 20 minutes later, the mother immediately checked in on the children. She found N. L. asleep in his room, but K. L. was awake and whining in her bed. The mother apologized for disturbing K. L., left her in bed, and proceeded to the bathroom. But K. L. followed her mother to the bathroom and immediately made an outcry against Lipscomb, who was known to the children as “Uncle PJ.” When asked what was wrong, K. L. told her mother that Uncle PJ “licked my butt and stuck his finger in my wee-wee.” The mother then lifted K. L.’s shirt and saw that the child’s underwear was on sideways, with both legs through one hole.
Thereafter, K. L.’s father was summoned to the bathroom, where K. L. repeated her allegations against Lipscomb. The father also observed that K. L.’s underwear was on improperly. At this time, Lipscomb was still playing video games at the family’s home, and K. L.’s parents called the police. K. L. was taken to the emergency room later that night, where she repeated her outcry to the examining physician, who performed a genital exam. The exam revealed no injuries to K. L.’s genital or rectal area, although the State presented medical testimony that the absence of physical injuries was not inconsistent with the victim’s allegations of abuse.
