Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 9, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People of Michigan v. Jordan Dennis Seegars

Michigan Court of Appeals

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 369966
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Disposition: Lower Court Judgment/Order Affirmed

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (8.6K)

• PDF

Disposition

Lower Court Judgment/Order Affirmed

Lead Opinion

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED
March 09, 2026
Plaintiff-Appellee, 1:55 PM

V No. 369966
Wayne Circuit Court
JORDAN DENNIS SEEGARS, LC No. 21-006676-01-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: MALDONADO, P.J., and M. J. KELLY and TREBILCOCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Jordan Seegars, appeals as of right his jury trial conviction of first-degree
criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I), MCL 750.520b(1)(a). Because there are no errors, we affirm.

I. BASIC FACTS

This case arises out of Seegars’ sexual assault of an eight-year-old girl. Seegars, who was
friends with the girl’s mother, periodically stayed at her house. On the night of December 19,
2019, the girl was sleeping on a couch in the living room when she awakened to discover that her
pants and underwear had been pulled down. She testified that Seegars was on his knees, touching
her “middle area” with his fingers. He also spit into her middle area. She stated that she pretended
to wake up and move around to get him to stop. She then went upstairs and disclosed the assault
to her mother and her mother’s girlfriend.

The mother’s girlfriend rushed downstairs and confronted Seegars, who denied any
wrongdoing. The woman’s girlfriend did not believe him and physically attacked him. The girl’s
mother called the police. She then confronted Seegars, ordering him to get out of her house. He
left before the police arrived, but he was ultimately arrested for his sexual assault of the girl.

A sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) performed an examination of the girl.
Additionally, the girl’s underwear was forensically examined. The forensic evaluation revealed
the presence of “acid phosphatase,” which indicated a possible presence of semen or seminal fluid.
In addition, the girl’s underwear, labia minora, labia majora, and anal perianal swabs revealed the
possible presence of male DNA. Based upon the forensic testing, it was determined that the DNA

-1-
in the girl’s underwear was “approximately 3.5 sextillion more likely [to have] originated from
[the girl] and [Seegars] than if it originated from [her] and one unrelated unknown contributor.”
Another section of her underwear was “approximately 510 octillion times more likely [to have]
originated from [the girl] and [Seegars] than if it originated from [her] and one unrelated unknown
contributor.” An expert explained that the results provided “very strong support” that Seegars
contributed to the DNA found in the girl’s underwear.

Following a jury trial, Seegars was convicted of CSC-I. This appeal follows.

II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Seegars argues that there is insufficient evidence to establish that he committed CSC-I
against the girl. Challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are reviewed de novo. People v
Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192, 195; 793 NW2d 120 (2010).

A. ANALYSIS

Under MCL 750.520b(1)(a), the prosecution must prove that the defendant engaged in
“sexual penetration with another person” and that “the other person is under 13 years of age.” See
also People v Lockett, 295 Mich App 165, 187; 814 NW2d 295 (2012). Seegars does not contest
the second element, i.e., that the girl was under 13 years of age when the assault occurred. Instead,
he argues that there is insufficient evidence of sexual penetration. We disagree.

The term “sexual penetration” is statutorily defined to mean “sexual intercourse,
cunnilingus, fellatio, anal intercourse, or any other intrusion, however slight, of any part of a
person’s body or of any object into the genital or anal openings of another person’s body . . . .”
MCL 750.520a(r). Here, the girl testified that Seegars used his fingers to touch the outside and
the inside of her “middle area.” She further stated that during the assault his fingers were
“spreading apart” or “opening” her “middle area.” She identified her vagina as her “middle area.”
In light of her testimony that there was touching inside and outside of her vagina, there was
sufficient evidence of sexual penetration. The girl’s testimony alone is sufficient to sustain the
conviction. See MCL 750.520h (“The testimony of a victim need not be corroborated in
prosecutions” for CSC-I). However, in this case, her testimony was corroborated by the forensic
evidence indicating the presence of male DNA on her labia minora and labia majora, and the
forensic evidence that reveal “very strong support” for the conclusion that Seegars was the male
contributor to the male DNA in her underwear.

On appeal, Seegars notes weaknesses in the DNA evidence, cites his trial lawyer’s
argument that there was only touching on the “outside” of the vagina, and indicates and it “made
no sense” for him to sexually assault the girl within minutes after the girl’s mother and her
girlfriend returned to the house. He contends that, as a result, the testimony supporting the
conviction is “inherently incredible” and should not be considered. However, “[]in determining
whether sufficient evidence exists to sustain a conviction, this Court reviews the evidence in the
light most favorable to the prosecution, and considers whether there was sufficient evidence to
justify a rational trier of fact in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Harris, 495
Mich 120, 126; 845 NW2d 477 (2014). “[A] reviewing court is required to draw all reasonable
inferences and make credibility choices in support of the jury verdict.” People v Oros, 502 Mich

-2-
229, 239; 917 NW2d 559 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The girl’s testimony was
not inherently incredible. And, as noted above, when considering her testimony in the proper light,
there is sufficient evidence to sustain Seegar’s CSC-I conviction.

III. JURY INSTRUCTIONS

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Seegars argues that reversal is required because the trial court did not instruct the jury on
second-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520c. “We review de novo claims of
instructional error.” People v Walker, 504 Mich 267, 276; 934 NW2d 727 (2019) (quotation marks
and citation omitted).

B. ANALYSIS

Seegars contends that CSC-II is a “necessarily lesser included offense of first-degree
criminal sexual conduct.” In support, he directs this Court to Justice YOUNG’s partial dissent in
People v Nyx, 479 Mich 112, 143-144; 734 NW2d 548 (2007). We are, however, bound to follow
the majority opinion in Nyx, which expressly held that CSC-II “is not a necessarily included lesser
offense of” CSC-I. Id. at 118. “Rather, it is a cognate lesser offense.” Id. The Nyx Court then
held that “MCL 768.32(1) precludes a judge or a jury from convicting a defendant of a cognate
lesser offense even if the crime is divided in degrees.” Id. at 121. Here, given that Seegars was
only charged with CSC-I, it would have been an error for the judge to instruct the jury that it could
convict him of CSC-II. The trial court, therefore, did not err by denying Seegar’s request for an
instruction on CSC-II. And, although Seegars argues on appeal that Nyx was wrongly decided, it
is a published decision by our Supreme Court. We are therefore bound to follow it. People v
Strickland, 293 Mich App 393, 402; 810 NW2d 660 (2011). Because our Supreme Court has
decided this issue in Nyx, this Court is bound to follow it and Seegars is not entitled to relief on
this issue.

Affirmed.

/s/ Allie Greenleaf Maldonado
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Christopher M. Trebilcock

-3-