A jury found Ronald Little guilty of child molestation and statutory rape. Little appeals, asserting that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict, admitting testimony about an inculpatory statement, and instructing the jurors concerning their request to rehear a witness’s testimony. Little also challenges the legality of his sentence. Finding no reversible error and sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict, we affirm. 1. We review the trial court’s denial of Little’s motion for directed verdict under the same standard we use to review the sufficiency of the evidence.1 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Conflicts in the testimony of the witnesses, including the State’s witnesses, are a matter of credibility for the jury to resolve.2 So viewed, the evidence shows that the victim, L. S., was 10 or 11 years old at the time the offenses occurred. In December 1995, the victim was living with her sister, her mother, and her mother’s boyfriend, Little. The victim testified that on numerous occasions, Little touched her on her breasts and vagina. The victim further stated that, in other instances, Little “pulled down her clothes and his clothes and laid on the bed and then he put his private in her private.” According to the victim, her private was her vagina, and Little’s private was his penis.
After the last time Little had intercourse with L. S., during March 1996, L. S.’s mother found the victim crying. L. S. told her mother that Little “had been messing with her. . . . He took her clothes off and got on top of her. . . .” Upon learning what happened, L. S.’s mother took her to the hospital to be examined. The examining physician testified that L. S. told him that from December 1995 through March 20, 1996, “she had been molested and sexually penetrated at least twice a week by her mother’s boyfriend.” The physician found that L. S.’s condition was “typical of penetration on numerous occasions over a relatively long period of time; months would be logical.”
