The appellant challenged sexual assault convictions and sought leave to appeal sentence following a jury trial.
He argued the trial judge erred in the charge to the jury, that the verdicts were unreasonable given internal inconsistencies and admitted untruths in the complainant's prior statements, and that the sentencing judge accepted unduly aggravating facts.
The court held the impugned jury instructions were adequate and appropriate, including the instruction drawn almost verbatim from authority concerning youthful complainants.
It further held there was evidence on which a properly instructed jury acting reasonably could convict and found no error in the sentencing judge's factual findings or in the sentences imposed.
