Background
Franklin Harold Bradshaw I was convicted by a jury of one count 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 was six and seven years old when the abuse occurred in 2013 and 2014 while temporarily living with Bradshaw.
AB testified that Bradshaw engaged in several sexual acts, including removing AB’s clothing, pulling the child’s legs apart, and placing his mouth on AB’s vagina. AB first disclosed the abuse during counseling in 2022 and provided further details in later forensic interviews after learning in 2023 that another child had accused Bradshaw of similar conduct. The trial court sentenced Bradshaw to 25 to 50 years for CSC-I and 10 to 15 years for each CSC-II conviction.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that AB’s testimony was sufficient to establish the sexual-penetration element of CSC-I. Michigan law expressly defines cunnilingus as sexual penetration, and cunnilingus requires placing the mouth on the female external genital organs; it does not require the tongue or another body part to enter the vaginal opening. Viewed in the prosecution’s favor, AB’s testimony that Bradshaw placed his mouth on the child’s vagina allowed a rational jury to find penetration beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court also rejected Bradshaw’s facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to the statute’s 25-year mandatory minimum sentence. Existing Michigan precedent foreclosed the facial challenge. As to Bradshaw individually, his age of 67 at sentencing, likely ineligibility for parole until approximately age 92, and lack of prior criminal history were not unusual circumstances sufficient to overcome the presumption that the legislatively mandated sentence was proportionate.
Because Bradshaw did not establish insufficient evidence or plain constitutional error affecting his substantial rights, the court affirmed his convictions and sentences.
Key Takeaways
- Placing one’s mouth on a victim’s external genital organs constitutes cunnilingus and therefore statutory “sexual penetration,” without proof of intrusion into the vaginal opening.
- A victim’s testimony alone may provide sufficient evidence to sustain a criminal-sexual-conduct conviction.
- A defendant’s advanced age, potential inability to obtain parole during his lifetime, and lack of criminal history do not by themselves make Michigan’s 25-year mandatory minimum for CSC-I grossly disproportionate.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Michigan’s statutory definition of penetration includes specified sexual acts such as cunnilingus even when there is no evidence of anatomical intrusion. Courts reviewing sufficiency challenges must draw reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support of the jury’s verdict.
It also confirms the difficulty of mounting an as-applied proportionality challenge to a legislatively mandated sentence. Personal circumstances commonly raised in mitigation, including age and a clean record, are insufficient without something unusual that rebuts the sentence’s presumed proportionality.