COA 375206 PEOPLE OF MI V RYAN CARL SCHROEDER Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 7/10/2026

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
-1-
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
UNPUBLISHED
July 10, 2026
12:53 PM
v No. 375206
Oceana Circuit Court
RYAN CARL SCHROEDER, LC No. 2024-016537-FH
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ACKERMAN, P.J., and REDFORD and FEENEY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury conviction of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct
(CSC-IV), MCL 750.520e(1)(a), for which the trial court sentenced him to nine months’
imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a directed
verdict. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises out of defendant’s sexual assault of PM. At the time of the assault, PM
was 15 years old and defendant was 26.
At trial, PM testified that defendant was in a relationship with her cousin, Ashlyn, and PM
frequently stayed overnight at the trailer defendant and Ashlyn shared. PM described the home as
a single-wide trailer with two bedrooms and an open common area comprising the kitchen and
living room. Defendant and Ashlyn shared one bedroom and the other belonged to Ashlyn’s
brother, Jaden. When she stayed the night, PM slept on the couch in the living room.
The instant assault occurred in December 2023 or January 2024 while PM was staying with
defendant and Ashlyn during winter break. She awoke at approximately 5:00 a.m. to someone
groping her breast, kissing her, and masturbating. She opened her eyes, saw defendant, and then
closed her eyes and “went back to sleep as he continued to do what he did.” When asked about
the lighting conditions at the time of the assault, PM testified that it was “in the morning, at, like,
6:00, where there’s, like, like just the lightest blue, but like a dark, no, like not—like a dark light
blue, where you can, like, everything kind of, like, halos, where you can, like, see everything, but,

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
like, barely, type.” Though it was dark outside at the time of the assault, the kitchen light was on,
and she was sure that defendant was the person she saw assaulting her. The assault lasted less than
a half hour.
PM testified that, before the assault, defendant made sexual remarks to her, complimented
her body, and told her how much he enjoyed watching her grow. He would also tell her about the
pornography he watched and his sexual activities with past partners. She eventually disclosed the
assault to her mother, who reported it to police.
Oceana Sheriff’s Department Detective Mark Hiddema testified regarding his investigation
into the assault. After PM underwent a forensic interview and made disclosures about the assault,
Detective Hiddema interviewed defendant. During the interview, the detective informed defendant
of PM’s disclosures, including an allegation that defendant talked to her about sex toys that he
owned. In response, defendant admitted that he showed PM a sex toy called a “pocket pussy” and
that he made crude remarks to her. He also acknowledged telling PM “that he thought it was kind
of hot how [she] was getting older” and acknowledged making comments to her about his
pornography preferences.
At the close of the prosecution’s proofs, defendant moved for a directed verdict, arguing
that the prosecution had not established the identity of the person who assaulted PM considering
the dark lighting conditions and late hour. The trial court denied the motion, referencing PM’s
testimony explicitly identifying defendant as her assailant.
After closing arguments, the jury found defendant guilty of CSC-IV. The trial court
thereafter sentenced him as described above. He now appeals.
II. DISCUSSION
When reviewing a decision on a directed-verdict motion, we review “the record de novo to
determine whether the evidence presented by the prosecutor, viewed in the light most favorable to
the prosecutor, could persuade a rational trier of fact that the essential elements were proved
beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101, 122; 631 NW2d 67 (2001), lv
den 465 Mich 952 (2002). “Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from that
evidence can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of a crime.” People v Thurmond, 348
Mich App 715, 721-722; 20 NW3d 311 (2023) (citation omitted). Courts may not “determine the
credibility of witnesses in deciding a motion for a directed verdict,” People v Mehall, 454 Mich 1,
6; 557 NW2d 110 (1997), nor “determine what inferences may be fairly drawn from the evidence”
or “the weight to be accorded those inferences,” People v Hardiman, 466 Mich 417, 428; 646
NW2d 158 (2002).1
To sustain a conviction for CSC-IV under MCL 750.520e(1)(a), the prosecution was
required to prove that the defendant engaged in sexual contact with a person who was between the
ages of 13 and 16 while the defendant was 5 or more years older than the other person. Defendant
1 Though Hardiman concerned a challenge to the sufficiency to the evidence, the “same standards
apply to a motion for a directed verdict.” Thurmond, 348 Mich App at 722.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
did not challenge in the trial court, nor does he challenge now on appeal, that sexual contact
occurred or that PM was 15 at the time of the assault. Instead, he argues that the “[lighting]
conditions did not allow her to adequately identify the perpetrator.”
The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to
permit a rational jury to find that the essential elements of CSC-IV were proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. PM testified to the sexual contact that occurred when she was 15, and she
explicitly identified defendant, who was then 26, as her assailant. She explained that, after she
awoke to someone groping her breast and kissing her, she opened her eyes and saw defendant
assaulting her. She acknowledged the early morning hour and dark lighting conditions but asserted
that the light in the adjoining kitchen was on, enabling her to identify with certainty that defendant
was her assailant.
In arguing that the lighting conditions rendered PM’s identification “implausible,”
defendant asks this Court to make a determination regarding the credibility of that testimony. But
courts may not make credibility determinations when deciding or reviewing a motion for a directed
verdict. Mehall, 454 Mich at 6. PM described the lighting conditions at the time of the assault
and asserted that she was able to see defendant assaulting her. Whether that assertion was credible
in light of those conditions was a question for the finder of fact. See People v Davis, 241 Mich
App 697, 700; 617 NW2d 381 (2000). Because PM’s testimony, viewed in the light most favorable
to the prosecution, was sufficient to permit a rational jury to conclude that defendant was the
individual who sexually assaulted her, the trial court properly denied his motion for a directed
verdict.
Affirmed.
/s/ Matthew S. Ackerman
/s/ James Robert Redford
/s/ Kathleen A. Feeney

-- 3 of 3 --