she eventually stated that the defendant had, in fact, abused her. See id. at 362. Although this Court found the child’s testimony in Murray “troublesome,” it refused to find any trial error, and held that “[t]he responsibility for weighing that testimony resides with the jury.” Id. (citing State v. Fischer, 238 A.2d 210, 212 (Me.1968)). Unlike the facts in State v. Murray and State v. Sanders, 460 A.2d 591 (Me.1983), on which Roman heavily relies, the victim’s testimony in this case was internally consistent throughout the entire course of both her direct and cross-examinations. Significantly, the victim never denied that Roman sexually abused her. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the questioning to continue. Neither did the court err in granti (<HOLDING>); State v. Whiting, 538 A.2d 300, 302 (Me.1988)
holding that past instances of physical contact between parties in sexual assault case admissible to show relationship intent opportunity and defendants attraction to alleged victim holding evidence of past uncharged sexual encounters admissible in child sexual abuse case to show relationship between defendant and alleged victim holding that evidence of prior uncharged sexual conduct with the victim is admissible to corroborate the victims testimony holding that uncharged sexual acts committed upon the same victim are admissible to show the conduct of the defendant toward the victim and to corroborate the evidence of the offense charged in the indictment holding evidence of outofstate instances of abuse admissible in child sexual abuse case to show intent opportunity and relationship between defendant and victim