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 based on 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 placing his mouth on AB’s vagina.
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, Bradshaw argued that AB’s testimony did not establish the penetration required for CSC-I and that the 25-year mandatory minimum sentence was unconstitutional both facially and as applied to him.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences. It held that AB’s testimony that Bradshaw put his mouth on the child’s vagina permitted a rational jury to find cunnilingus. Because Michigan law defines cunnilingus itself as sexual penetration, the prosecution did not need to prove that Bradshaw’s tongue entered the child’s genital opening.
The court also rejected Bradshaw’s constitutional challenges to the 25-year mandatory minimum under MCL 750.520b(2)(b). Existing Michigan precedent foreclosed his facial challenge. His as-applied challenge also failed because a legislatively mandated sentence is presumptively proportionate, and neither his age of 67 nor his lack of prior criminal history was an unusual circumstance sufficient to overcome that presumption.
Key Takeaways
- Testimony that an accused placed his mouth on a child’s external genital organs can establish cunnilingus and therefore the penetration element of CSC-I under Michigan law.
- A victim’s testimony alone may provide sufficient evidence to sustain a criminal-sexual-conduct conviction.
- 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 CSC-I involving a victim under 13.
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 the substantial burden defendants face when challenging a legislatively mandated sentence as cruel or unusual, even when the minimum term may make parole during the defendant’s lifetime unlikely.