Michigan Sex Crimes Attorney
Lansing Sex Crimes and Rape Defense Attorney
In our American system of criminal justice, you are presumed innocent of all crimes until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a prosecuting official. If you or your loved one is accused or charged with a criminal offense, do NOT, under any circumstances, talk to the police. Reveal only your name, date of birth, address, and telephone number to the police, and do NOT consent to a police search or government official search of your body, home, telephone, computer, or vehicle without a search warrant. If you are facing questioning from a police officer or prosecuting official, contact Lansing criminal defense attorney Eric J. Sheppard immediately at 517-618-1580, and let Eric J. Sheppard fight for your rights.
If you or your loved one is accused or charged with a sex crime offense, then you need to contact Lansing sex crimes attorney Eric J. Sheppard. Lansing criminal defense attorney Eric J. Sheppard is aggressive and experienced in fighting all sex crime cases.
Sex crime cases are the most serious of all cases. Sex crime cases can originate years after the alleged conduct or alleged offense and can include allegations from family members, neighbors, friends, work associates, and other individuals with close relationships to the accused.
Sex crime cases reach all areas of society, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, age, or economic status. Police officers are often called to investigate, and police officers are often met with contradictory stories of what may or may not have occurred between individuals involved in a sex crimes cases. It is vitally important that you do not make any incriminating statements to police officers. Contact Lansing criminal defense attorney Eric J. Sheppard immediately at 517-618-1580 if you find yourself involved in a sex crime case and the police are called to the scene or called to investigate a potential crime.
Criminal sexual conduct cases are complicated cases that are governed by the Criminal Sexual Conduct Act (CSC Act), MCL 750.520a et seq. The CSC Act prohibits many types of sexual misconduct. Michigan's CSC Act punishes marital rape and criminal sexual conduct involving children - no matter the age of the child.
There are 4 different degrees of criminal sexual conduct: first degree, second degree, third degree, and fourth degree.
COMMON ELEMENTS FOR CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT CHARGES:
M Crim JI 20.1 Criminal Sexual Conduct in the First Degree
(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2) First, that the defendant engaged in a sexual act that involved:
[Choose (a), (b), (c), or (d):]
(a) entry into [name complainant]’s [genital opening / anal opening] by the defendant’s [penis / finger / tongue / (name object)]. Any entry, no matter how slight, is enough. It does not matter whether the sexual act was completed or whether semen was ejaculated.
(b) entry into [name complainant]’s mouth by the defendant’s penis. Any entry, no matter how slight, is enough. It does not matter whether the sexual act was completed or whether semen was ejaculated.
(c) touching of [name complainant]’s [genital openings / genital organs] with the defendant’s mouth or tongue.
(d) entry by [any part of one person’s body / some object] into the genital or anal opening of another person’s body. Any entry, no matter how slight, is enough. It is alleged in this case that a sexual act was committed by [state alleged act]. It does not matter whether the sexual act was completed or whether semen was ejaculated.
(3) [Follow this instruction with one or more of the nine alternatives, M Crim JI 20.3 to M Crim JI 20.11, as warranted by the evidence.]
(4) [Where the defendant is charged under MCL 750.520b(2)(b) with the twenty-five-year mandatory minimum for being seventeen years of age or older and penetrating a child under thirteen years old, instruct according to M Crim JI 20.30b.]
Use Notes
Option (2)(a) should be used to describe intercourse, anal intercourse, and most acts of penetration other than fellatio and cunnilingus.
Option (2)(b) should be used to describe fellatio. The instruction comports with the supreme court’s order in People v Johnson, 432 Mich 931; 442 NW2d 625 (1989), which adopted Judge Michael Kelly’s dissenting opinion in that case, 164 Mich App 634, 646; 418 NW2d 117 (1987). Judge Kelly concluded that fellatio requires penetration. Therefore, the jury must be instructed that proof of penetration, however slight, is necessary to convict where fellatio is alleged.
Option (2)(c) describes cunnilingus, with respect to which oral contact is sufficient by definition. Johnson, 164 Mich App at 649 n1.
Option (2)(d) should be used only in unusual cases, such as intercourse between persons other than the defendant, or anal or genital intercourse with entry into the defendant’s body. For example, in People v Hack, 219 Mich App 299; 556 NW2d 187 (1996), and People v Dilling, 222 Mich App 44; 564 NW2d 56 (1997), the court of appeals held that the defendants could be convicted for forcing a three-year-old to perform fellatio on a one-year-old. Although it is somewhat unclear, the statute’s use of the adjective another before person’s body in the definition of sexual penetration may exclude some acts from the statute, such as where the defendant forces the complainant to insert some object into the complainant’s own body.
If more than one specific act of criminal sexual conduct is claimed, the trial court should instruct the jury that its verdict as to each alleged act must be unanimous. See People v Yarger, 193 Mich App 532; 485 NW2d 119 (1992), and People v Van Dorsten, 441 Mich 540; 494 NW2d 737 (1993). However, where a single act is charged with multiple aggravating circumstances, the jury need not be unanimous about which aggravating circumstance has been established as long as all jurors agree that one or more has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Gadomski, 232 Mich App 24, 30-32; 592 NW2d 75 (1998).
M Crim JI 20.30b should be given where the prosecutor charges that the crime was committed by a defendant who was seventeen years of age or older at the time of the offense, and the victim at that time was under the age of thirteen years, which triggers a mandatory minimum sentence under MCL 750.520b(2)(b). See Alleyne v United States, 570 US __; 133 S Ct 2151; 186 L Ed 2d 314 (2013), where the United States Supreme Court held that facts that would trigger a mandatory minimum sentence must be admitted by the defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the trier of fact.
PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE FIRST DEGREE:
A defendant will be exempt from registration under SORA is the complainant is between 13 and 16 years of age and consented to the conduct and the defendant is not more than 4 years older than the complainant. In order to be exempt from SORA under this provision of the law, a defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is exempt from registration. A hearing on this issue must occur before sentencing, and the rules of evidence do not apply at such a hearing. MCL 28.723a et seq.
For a conviction under MCL 750.520b(1)(a) or MCL 750.520b(1)(b), a defendant must also be sentenced to lifetime electronic monitoring under MCL 750.520n; MCL 750.520b(2)(d). This lifetime electronic monitoring is also mandatory for a conviction for CSC 1st Degree committed by an adult 17 years or older against an individual under 13 years of age.
NOTE - any felony conviction has collateral consequences, including, but not limited to, immigration consequences. A defendant must be notified of the requirement to register under the Michigan Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) and must be notified about the potential for immigration consequences prior to entering a guilty plea in a criminal case. People v Fonville, 291 Mich App 363; 804 NW2d 878 (2011); Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356 (2010).
DEFENSES:
- Actual Innocence
- Consent
- Alibi
- Touching for non-sexual purpose
- Misidentification
M Crim JI 20.2 Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Second Degree
(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of second-degree criminal sexual conduct. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2) First, that the defendant intentionally [touched (name complainant)’s / made (name complainant) touch (his / her) / permitted (name complainant) to touch (his / her)] [genital area / groin / inner thigh / buttock / (or) breast] or the clothing covering that area.
(3) Second, that this was done for sexual purposes or could reasonably be construed as having been done for sexual purposes.
(4) [Follow this instruction with one or more of the 13 alternatives, M Crim JI 20.3 to M Crim JI 20.11d, as warranted by the evidence. See the table of contents on p. 20-1 for a list of the alternatives.]
M Crim JI 20.12 Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Third Degree (1) The defendant is charged with the crime of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2) First, that the defendant engaged in a sexual act that involved:
[Choose one of the following:]
(a) entry into [name complainant]’s [genital opening / anal opening] by the defendant’s [penis / finger / tongue / (name object)]. Any entry, no matter how slight, is enough. It does not matter whether the sexual act was completed or whether semen was ejaculated.
(b) entry into [name complainant]’s mouth by the defendant’s penis. Any entry, no matter how slight, is enough. It does not matter whether the sexual act was completed or whether semen was ejaculated.
(c) touching of [name complainant]’s [genital openings / genital organs] with the defendant’s mouth or tongue.
(d) entry by [any part of one person’s body / some object] into the genital or anal opening of another person’s body. Any entry, no matter how slight, is enough. It is alleged in this case that a sexual act was committed by [state alleged act]. It does not matter whether the sexual act was completed or whether semen was ejaculated.
(3) [Follow this instruction with one or more of the following alternatives, M Crim JI 20.14, M Crim JI 20.14a, M Crim JI, 20.14b, M Crim JI, 20.14c, M Crim JI, 20.14d, M Crim JI 20.15, M Crim JI 20.16, or M Crim JI, 20.16a, as warranted by the evidence.]
Use Note
Option (2)(a) should be used to describe intercourse, anal intercourse, and most acts of penetration other than fellatio and cunnilingus.
Option (2)(b) should be used to describe fellatio. The instruction comports with the supreme court’s order in People v Johnson, 432 Mich 931, 442 NW2d 625 (1989), which adopted Judge Michael Kelly’s dissenting opinion in that case, 164 Mich App 634, 646, 418 NW2d 117 (1987). Judge Kelly concluded that fellatio requires penetration. Therefore, the jury must be instructed that proof of penetration, however slight, is necessary to convict where fellatio is alleged.
Option (2)(c) describes cunnilingus, with respect to which oral contact is sufficient by definition. Johnson, 164 Mich App at 649 n1.
Option (2)(d) should be used only in unusual cases, such as intercourse between persons other than the defendant, or anal or genital intercourse with entry into the defendant’s body. Although it is somewhat unclear, the statute’s use of the adjective another before person’s body in the definition of sexual penetration may exclude some acts from the statute, such as where the defendant forces the complainant to insert some object into the complainant’s own body.
History
M Crim JI 20.12 (formerly CJI2d 20.12) was CJI 20:4:01. Amended October, 1993; September, 1996; September, 2000.
M Crim JI 20.13 Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Fourth Degree
(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2) First, that the defendant intentionally [touched (name complainant)’s / made (name complainant) touch (his / her)] [genital area / groin / inner thigh / buttock / (or) breast] or the clothing covering that area.
(3) Second, that this touching was done for sexual purposes or could reasonably be construed as having been done for sexual purposes.
(4) [Follow this instruction with M Crim JI 20.14a, M Crim JI, 20.14b, M Crim JI, 20.14c, M Crim JI, 20.14d, M Crim JI 20.15, M Crim JI 20.16, or M Crim JI, 20.16a, as warranted by the evidence.]
Use Note
Use this instruction where the facts describe an offensive touching.
Where an offensive touching involving an employee of the Department of Corrections is alleged, an appropriate instruction conforming to MCL 750.520e(1)(c) should be drafted.
If you or your loved one is accused or charged with a sex crime offense, then you need to contact Lansing sex crimes attorney Eric J. Sheppard. Lansing criminal defense attorney Eric J. Sheppard is aggressive and experienced in fighting all sex crime cases.
Sex crime cases are the most serious of all cases. Sex crime cases can originate years after the alleged conduct or alleged offense and can include allegations from family members, neighbors, friends, work associates, and other individuals with close relationships to the accused.
Sex crime cases reach all areas of society, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, age, or economic status. Police officers are often called to investigate, and police officers are often met with contradictory stories of what may or may not have occurred between individuals involved in a sex crimes cases. It is vitally important that you do not make any incriminating statements to police officers. Contact Lansing criminal defense attorney Eric J. Sheppard immediately at 517-618-1580 if you find yourself involved in a sex crime case and the police are called to the scene or called to investigate a potential crime.
Criminal sexual conduct cases are complicated cases that are governed by the Criminal Sexual Conduct Act (CSC Act), MCL 750.520a et seq. The CSC Act prohibits many types of sexual misconduct. Michigan's CSC Act punishes marital rape and criminal sexual conduct involving children - no matter the age of the child.
There are 4 different degrees of criminal sexual conduct: first degree, second degree, third degree, and fourth degree.
COMMON ELEMENTS FOR CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT CHARGES:
M Crim JI 20.1 Criminal Sexual Conduct in the First Degree
(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2) First, that the defendant engaged in a sexual act that involved:
[Choose (a), (b), (c), or (d):]
(a) entry into [name complainant]’s [genital opening / anal opening] by the defendant’s [penis / finger / tongue / (name object)]. Any entry, no matter how slight, is enough. It does not matter whether the sexual act was completed or whether semen was ejaculated.
(b) entry into [name complainant]’s mouth by the defendant’s penis. Any entry, no matter how slight, is enough. It does not matter whether the sexual act was completed or whether semen was ejaculated.
(c) touching of [name complainant]’s [genital openings / genital organs] with the defendant’s mouth or tongue.
(d) entry by [any part of one person’s body / some object] into the genital or anal opening of another person’s body. Any entry, no matter how slight, is enough. It is alleged in this case that a sexual act was committed by [state alleged act]. It does not matter whether the sexual act was completed or whether semen was ejaculated.
(3) [Follow this instruction with one or more of the nine alternatives, M Crim JI 20.3 to M Crim JI 20.11, as warranted by the evidence.]
(4) [Where the defendant is charged under MCL 750.520b(2)(b) with the twenty-five-year mandatory minimum for being seventeen years of age or older and penetrating a child under thirteen years old, instruct according to M Crim JI 20.30b.]
Use Notes
Option (2)(a) should be used to describe intercourse, anal intercourse, and most acts of penetration other than fellatio and cunnilingus.
Option (2)(b) should be used to describe fellatio. The instruction comports with the supreme court’s order in People v Johnson, 432 Mich 931; 442 NW2d 625 (1989), which adopted Judge Michael Kelly’s dissenting opinion in that case, 164 Mich App 634, 646; 418 NW2d 117 (1987). Judge Kelly concluded that fellatio requires penetration. Therefore, the jury must be instructed that proof of penetration, however slight, is necessary to convict where fellatio is alleged.
Option (2)(c) describes cunnilingus, with respect to which oral contact is sufficient by definition. Johnson, 164 Mich App at 649 n1.
Option (2)(d) should be used only in unusual cases, such as intercourse between persons other than the defendant, or anal or genital intercourse with entry into the defendant’s body. For example, in People v Hack, 219 Mich App 299; 556 NW2d 187 (1996), and People v Dilling, 222 Mich App 44; 564 NW2d 56 (1997), the court of appeals held that the defendants could be convicted for forcing a three-year-old to perform fellatio on a one-year-old. Although it is somewhat unclear, the statute’s use of the adjective another before person’s body in the definition of sexual penetration may exclude some acts from the statute, such as where the defendant forces the complainant to insert some object into the complainant’s own body.
If more than one specific act of criminal sexual conduct is claimed, the trial court should instruct the jury that its verdict as to each alleged act must be unanimous. See People v Yarger, 193 Mich App 532; 485 NW2d 119 (1992), and People v Van Dorsten, 441 Mich 540; 494 NW2d 737 (1993). However, where a single act is charged with multiple aggravating circumstances, the jury need not be unanimous about which aggravating circumstance has been established as long as all jurors agree that one or more has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Gadomski, 232 Mich App 24, 30-32; 592 NW2d 75 (1998).
M Crim JI 20.30b should be given where the prosecutor charges that the crime was committed by a defendant who was seventeen years of age or older at the time of the offense, and the victim at that time was under the age of thirteen years, which triggers a mandatory minimum sentence under MCL 750.520b(2)(b). See Alleyne v United States, 570 US __; 133 S Ct 2151; 186 L Ed 2d 314 (2013), where the United States Supreme Court held that facts that would trigger a mandatory minimum sentence must be admitted by the defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the trier of fact.
PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE FIRST DEGREE:
- by imprisonment for life or any term of years
- for a violation that is committed by an individual 17 years of age or older against an individual less than 13 years of age, by imprisonment for life or any term of years, but not less than 25 years [25-year mandatory minimum]
- for a violation that is committed by an individual 18 years of age or older against an individual less than 13 years of age, by imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole if the person was previously convicted of a violation of MCL 750.520b, MCL 750.520c, MCL 750.520d, MCL 750.520e, or MCL 750.520g committed against an individual less than 13 years of age or committed against an individual less than 13 years of age
- NOTE - CSC 1st Degree is a class A offense for felony sentencing guideline purposes; in People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358; 870 NW2d 502 (2015), the Michigan Supreme Court held that the Michigan Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only. A sentence must be "reasonable." However, there is no longer any substantial and compelling reason that a court must articulate for a departure from the advisory guidelines.
- NOTE - CSC 1st Degree is a Tier III offense under the Michigan Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), which requires lifetime registration on the public SORA list pursuant to MCL 28.722(w)(iv); MCL 28.725(12); MCL 28.725a(3).
A defendant will be exempt from registration under SORA is the complainant is between 13 and 16 years of age and consented to the conduct and the defendant is not more than 4 years older than the complainant. In order to be exempt from SORA under this provision of the law, a defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is exempt from registration. A hearing on this issue must occur before sentencing, and the rules of evidence do not apply at such a hearing. MCL 28.723a et seq.
For a conviction under MCL 750.520b(1)(a) or MCL 750.520b(1)(b), a defendant must also be sentenced to lifetime electronic monitoring under MCL 750.520n; MCL 750.520b(2)(d). This lifetime electronic monitoring is also mandatory for a conviction for CSC 1st Degree committed by an adult 17 years or older against an individual under 13 years of age.
NOTE - any felony conviction has collateral consequences, including, but not limited to, immigration consequences. A defendant must be notified of the requirement to register under the Michigan Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) and must be notified about the potential for immigration consequences prior to entering a guilty plea in a criminal case. People v Fonville, 291 Mich App 363; 804 NW2d 878 (2011); Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356 (2010).
DEFENSES:
- Actual Innocence
- Consent
- Alibi
- Touching for non-sexual purpose
- Misidentification
M Crim JI 20.2 Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Second Degree
(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of second-degree criminal sexual conduct. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2) First, that the defendant intentionally [touched (name complainant)’s / made (name complainant) touch (his / her) / permitted (name complainant) to touch (his / her)] [genital area / groin / inner thigh / buttock / (or) breast] or the clothing covering that area.
(3) Second, that this was done for sexual purposes or could reasonably be construed as having been done for sexual purposes.
(4) [Follow this instruction with one or more of the 13 alternatives, M Crim JI 20.3 to M Crim JI 20.11d, as warranted by the evidence. See the table of contents on p. 20-1 for a list of the alternatives.]
M Crim JI 20.12 Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Third Degree (1) The defendant is charged with the crime of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2) First, that the defendant engaged in a sexual act that involved:
[Choose one of the following:]
(a) entry into [name complainant]’s [genital opening / anal opening] by the defendant’s [penis / finger / tongue / (name object)]. Any entry, no matter how slight, is enough. It does not matter whether the sexual act was completed or whether semen was ejaculated.
(b) entry into [name complainant]’s mouth by the defendant’s penis. Any entry, no matter how slight, is enough. It does not matter whether the sexual act was completed or whether semen was ejaculated.
(c) touching of [name complainant]’s [genital openings / genital organs] with the defendant’s mouth or tongue.
(d) entry by [any part of one person’s body / some object] into the genital or anal opening of another person’s body. Any entry, no matter how slight, is enough. It is alleged in this case that a sexual act was committed by [state alleged act]. It does not matter whether the sexual act was completed or whether semen was ejaculated.
(3) [Follow this instruction with one or more of the following alternatives, M Crim JI 20.14, M Crim JI 20.14a, M Crim JI, 20.14b, M Crim JI, 20.14c, M Crim JI, 20.14d, M Crim JI 20.15, M Crim JI 20.16, or M Crim JI, 20.16a, as warranted by the evidence.]
Use Note
Option (2)(a) should be used to describe intercourse, anal intercourse, and most acts of penetration other than fellatio and cunnilingus.
Option (2)(b) should be used to describe fellatio. The instruction comports with the supreme court’s order in People v Johnson, 432 Mich 931, 442 NW2d 625 (1989), which adopted Judge Michael Kelly’s dissenting opinion in that case, 164 Mich App 634, 646, 418 NW2d 117 (1987). Judge Kelly concluded that fellatio requires penetration. Therefore, the jury must be instructed that proof of penetration, however slight, is necessary to convict where fellatio is alleged.
Option (2)(c) describes cunnilingus, with respect to which oral contact is sufficient by definition. Johnson, 164 Mich App at 649 n1.
Option (2)(d) should be used only in unusual cases, such as intercourse between persons other than the defendant, or anal or genital intercourse with entry into the defendant’s body. Although it is somewhat unclear, the statute’s use of the adjective another before person’s body in the definition of sexual penetration may exclude some acts from the statute, such as where the defendant forces the complainant to insert some object into the complainant’s own body.
History
M Crim JI 20.12 (formerly CJI2d 20.12) was CJI 20:4:01. Amended October, 1993; September, 1996; September, 2000.
M Crim JI 20.13 Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Fourth Degree
(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2) First, that the defendant intentionally [touched (name complainant)’s / made (name complainant) touch (his / her)] [genital area / groin / inner thigh / buttock / (or) breast] or the clothing covering that area.
(3) Second, that this touching was done for sexual purposes or could reasonably be construed as having been done for sexual purposes.
(4) [Follow this instruction with M Crim JI 20.14a, M Crim JI, 20.14b, M Crim JI, 20.14c, M Crim JI, 20.14d, M Crim JI 20.15, M Crim JI 20.16, or M Crim JI, 20.16a, as warranted by the evidence.]
Use Note
Use this instruction where the facts describe an offensive touching.
Where an offensive touching involving an employee of the Department of Corrections is alleged, an appropriate instruction conforming to MCL 750.520e(1)(c) should be drafted.
The Law Office of Eric J. Sheppard
2109 Hamilton Road, Suite 206
Okemos MI 48864
[email protected]
PH: 517-618-1580 (office)
PH: 216-973-9996 (cell)
Fax: 517-913-6321
2109 Hamilton Road, Suite 206
Okemos MI 48864
[email protected]
PH: 517-618-1580 (office)
PH: 216-973-9996 (cell)
Fax: 517-913-6321