After a jury trial, Darryl Duane Hamrick was found guilty of felony sexual battery1 as the lesser included offense to the indicted charge of child molestation.2 Hamrick appeals, arguing that 1 the trial court erred by refusing to grant a mistrial following the admission of improper character evidence; 2 the trial court erred by failing to grant one of Hamrick’s requests to charge; and 3 the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. For the following reasons, we affirm. 1. Hamrick argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. We disagree. When evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, the proper standard for review is whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, giving deference to the jury’s determination on the proper weight and credibility to be given the evidence.3 So viewed, the evidence presented at trial established that D. D., who was Hamrick’s nine-year-old neighbor, was playing at the neighborhood pool while Hamrick was also there. D. D. testified that Hamrick “touched him on the private part.”4 D. D. explained that Hamrick bit him on the shoulder and then Hamrick used his hand to “squeeze D. D.” underneath his swim trunks. D. D. told Hamrick to stop, and Hamrick released D. D. when his mother called him.
“A person commits the offense of sexual battery . . . when he or she intentionally makes physical contact with the intimate parts of the body of another person without the consent of that person,”5 and it is considered a felony when the victim is under the age of 16.6 Based on the facts as stated above, the jury was authorized to find Hamrick guilty of sexual battery.7 Hamrick contends that for a number of reasons, the jury should have disbelieved D. D.’s testimony; however, it is the jury’s role, and not the role of this Court, to assess witness credibility.8 Hamrick also argues that lack of physical evidence, lack of a video tape from the pool-side camera, and lack of testimony from a mandatory reporter show that the evidence was insufficient to support the guilty verdict. Nevertheless, the testimony of one witness is sufficient to sustain a verdict, and D. D.’s testimony is sufficient here.9 Accordingly, Hamrick’s contention is without merit.
