Mark Goss was convicted of child molestation and acquitted of aggravated sexual battery. On appeal, Goss challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and argues that his trial counsel was ineffective. For the reasons stated below, we affirm Goss’s conviction. “On appeal from a criminal conviction, a defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict.”1 So viewed, 17-year-old J. G. testified that Goss molested her when she was 14 years old. Specifically, J. G. testified that she was knocking on a neighbor’s door, when Goss, who also lived in her neighborhood, approached her, and led her by her arm to the side of the house where he kissed her, rubbed her vagina, bottom, and her back and chest, and inserted his finger into her vagina. Also admitted into evidence was Goss’s statement that J. G. initiated contact by grabbing and rubbing his penis; that “he rubbed her on her vagina at the top of her hair area;” and that he had an erection but came to his senses, stopped, and told J. G. that he was not going to touch her that way again.
1. Goss argues that his conviction should be reversed because the evidence was disputed, casting doubt on J. G.’s credibility. On appeal, however, we neither weigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses, but merely ascertain that the evidence is sufficient to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, conflicts in the testimony of the witnesses are a matter of credibility for the jury to resolve. As long as there is some competent evidence, even though contradicted, to support each fact necessary to make out the state’s case, the jury’s verdict will be upheld.2 It is for the jury “to choose what evidence to believe and what to reject. Issues regarding the credibility of witnesses are in the sole province of the jury and only the jury may analyze what weight will be given each witness’s testimony.”3 Goss points us to evidence that J. G. told the police that Goss put his penis in her vagina and then recanted at trial, but even evidence of a recantation at trial requires a credibility determination, which is within the province of the jury, not this court.4
