Background
Franklin Harold Bradshaw I was convicted by a jury of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct arising from the sexual abuse of his grandchild, AB. AB testified that the abuse occurred in 2013 and 2014, when the child was six and seven years old and temporarily living with Bradshaw.
Among other acts, AB testified that Bradshaw removed the child’s clothing, pulled the child’s legs apart, and placed his mouth on the child’s vagina. AB first disclosed the abuse during counseling in 2022 but made no disclosure in a later forensic interview. After learning in 2023 that another child had accused Bradshaw of similar conduct, AB participated in additional forensic interviews and disclosed the earlier abuse.
The trial court sentenced Bradshaw to 25 to 50 years in prison for CSC-I and 10 to 15 years for each CSC-II conviction. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting CSC-I and argued that its 25-year mandatory minimum sentence was unconstitutional both facially and as applied to him.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that AB’s testimony permitted a rational jury to find the penetration element of CSC-I beyond a reasonable doubt. Under Michigan law, cunnilingus constitutes sexual penetration and requires placing the mouth on the female external genital organs; additional penetration into the vagina is unnecessary. AB’s testimony that Bradshaw placed his mouth on the child’s vagina was therefore sufficient.
The court also rejected Bradshaw’s constitutional challenges to the mandatory minimum. Existing Michigan precedent foreclosed his facial claim that the 25-year minimum constitutes cruel or unusual punishment. His as-applied claim likewise failed because a legislatively mandated sentence is presumptively proportionate, and neither his age nor his lack of prior criminal history qualified as an unusual circumstance overcoming that presumption.
Key Takeaways
- A child victim’s testimony that the defendant placed his mouth on the child’s vagina can establish cunnilingus and thus the sexual-penetration element of CSC-I.
- Cunnilingus does not require proof that the defendant’s tongue or mouth penetrated the vaginal opening; contact with the external genital organs is sufficient.
- A defendant’s advanced age and lack of criminal history do not, without more, overcome the presumed proportionality of Michigan’s 25-year mandatory minimum for the CSC-I offense at issue.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Michigan’s statutory definition of sexual penetration includes cunnilingus without proof of intrusion into the vaginal opening. It also confirms that the victim’s testimony alone may provide sufficient evidence to sustain a CSC-I conviction.
The opinion further illustrates the difficulty of mounting an as-applied proportionality challenge to a legislatively mandated sentence. Even though Bradshaw was 67 at sentencing and would not become parole-eligible until approximately age 92, those circumstances did not make the mandatory minimum constitutionally disproportionate.