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, 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 touching AB with his penis, asking AB to masturbate him, and placing his mouth on AB’s vagina.
AB first disclosed the abuse during counseling in 2022 but made no disclosure in a subsequent forensic interview, and the initial investigation was closed as unfounded. After learning in 2023 that another child had accused Bradshaw of similar conduct, AB participated in additional forensic interviews and disclosed the 2013 and 2014 abuse. 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 Michigan Court of Appeals held that AB’s testimony was sufficient to establish the penetration element of CSC-I. Michigan law expressly defines sexual penetration to include cunnilingus, and cunnilingus requires placing the mouth on the external female genital organs; it does not require the tongue or another body part to enter the vaginal opening. Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, AB’s testimony that Bradshaw placed his mouth on AB’s vagina permitted a rational jury to find the element proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court also rejected Bradshaw’s facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to the statute’s mandatory 25-year minimum sentence. Existing Michigan precedent foreclosed the facial challenge. As to the sentence’s application to Bradshaw, the court held that neither his age of 67, which made it likely that he would remain imprisoned for the rest of his life, nor his lack of prior criminal history overcame the presumption that the legislatively mandated sentence was proportionate. The court therefore affirmed the convictions and sentences.
Key Takeaways
- A victim’s testimony that a defendant placed his mouth on the victim’s external genitalia can establish cunnilingus and therefore “sexual penetration” under Michigan’s CSC statutes without proof of entry 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 and lack of prior criminal history do not, without more, rebut the presumed proportionality of Michigan’s mandatory 25-year minimum sentence for CSC-I against a child under 13.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Michigan’s statutory definition of penetration is broader than physical intrusion into a genital opening and that courts must evaluate evidence of cunnilingus under that definition. It also confirms the continued force of precedent upholding the mandatory 25-year minimum for adult offenders convicted of CSC-I involving victims under 13.