Following a jury trial, Donald Lilly was convicted on one count of aggravated sexual battery1 and one count of child molestation.2 He appeals his conviction and the denial of his motion for new trial, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal based on insufficiency of the evidence. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. The standard of review for the denial of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal is the same as determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction. Hash v. State .3 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence.” Wesson v. State .4 We do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility, but only determine if the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia .5
So viewed, the evidence shows that in early 2003, Lilly periodically lived with Joseph Prueitt Lilly’s half-brother and Prueitt’s family, which included his wife, his son, and his five-year-old daughter A. P. During the times that Lilly lived with Prueitt, he occasionally slept in the same bedroom as A. P. One night when Lilly was gone, A. P.’s stepmother Prueitt’s wife was awakened by A. P., who was crying and holding her privates while pacing back and forth at the foot of her stepmother’s bed. After her stepmother attempted to calm her and asked her what was wrong, A. P. responded that several nights earlier, Lilly had crawled into her bed and had touched her privates. A. P.’s stepmother immediately called her husband, who was working a night shift, and the police. The police officer who responded to the call took statements and scheduled A. P. to be interviewed a few days later. During this videotaped interview, A. P. stated that Lilly had touched her privates and had also put his finger inside her privates.