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 for sexually abusing his grandchild, AB, when the child was six and seven years old. AB testified that Bradshaw engaged in several sexual acts while AB temporarily lived with him, including placing his mouth on AB’s vagina.
The trial court sentenced Bradshaw to 25 to 50 years’ imprisonment for CSC-I and 10 to 15 years for each CSC-II conviction. On appeal, Bradshaw challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the CSC-I conviction and argued that its mandatory 25-year minimum sentence was unconstitutional.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that AB’s testimony was sufficient to establish sexual penetration for CSC-I. Because cunnilingus qualifies by definition as sexual penetration under Michigan law and requires placing the mouth on the external female genital organs, the prosecution did not need to prove that Bradshaw’s tongue entered AB’s vaginal opening. Viewed in the prosecution’s favor, AB’s testimony that Bradshaw placed his mouth on the child’s vagina permitted a rational jury to find the element proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court also rejected Bradshaw’s facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to the mandatory minimum. Existing Michigan precedent foreclosed the facial challenge. As applied, the legislatively mandated sentence was presumptively proportionate, and neither Bradshaw’s age of 67—which meant he would not become parole-eligible until approximately age 92—nor his lack of prior criminal history was an unusual circumstance sufficient to overcome that presumption. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences.
Key Takeaways
- Testimony that a defendant placed his mouth on a child’s vagina can establish cunnilingus and therefore “sexual penetration” for purposes of Michigan’s CSC-I statute without proof that the tongue entered the vaginal opening.
- A victim’s testimony alone may provide sufficient evidence to support a criminal-sexual-conduct conviction.
- A defendant’s advanced age and lack of criminal history do not, without more, overcome the presumptive proportionality of the mandatory 25-year minimum sentence under MCL 750.520b(2)(b).
Why It Matters
The decision applies Michigan’s statutory definition of sexual penetration to clarify that cunnilingus does not require intrusion into the vagina. The relevant contact with the external genital organs is itself enough to satisfy the penetration element.
The opinion also reinforces the difficulty of mounting an as-applied proportionality challenge to a legislatively mandated sentence. Even when the minimum term may effectively consume the remainder of an older defendant’s life, age and an otherwise clean record do not by themselves establish cruel or unusual punishment.