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, when the child was six and seven years old. AB temporarily lived with Bradshaw from September 2013 through January 2014 and testified that Bradshaw engaged in several sexual acts, including 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 investigation was closed as unfounded. After learning in 2023 that another child had accused Bradshaw of similar abuse, AB participated in additional forensic interviews and disclosed the 2013 and 2014 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 sufficient evidence supported the CSC-I conviction. Michigan law defines sexual penetration to include cunnilingus, 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 pulled the child’s legs apart and placed his mouth on AB’s vagina permitted a rational jury to find the penetration element beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court also rejected Bradshaw’s facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to the 25-year mandatory minimum under MCL 750.520b(2)(b). Existing Michigan precedent foreclosed the facial challenge. As applied, Bradshaw’s age of 67 at sentencing and lack of prior criminal history did not overcome the presumption that the legislatively mandated sentence was proportionate, so the sentence did not constitute cruel or unusual punishment.
Key Takeaways
- For Michigan CSC-I, cunnilingus itself constitutes statutory sexual penetration; proof of physical entry into the vaginal opening is unnecessary.
- A victim’s testimony that the defendant placed his mouth on the victim’s vagina can, standing alone, support the penetration element when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
- A defendant’s advanced age and lack of criminal history do not, without more, make the 25-year mandatory minimum under MCL 750.520b(2)(b) grossly disproportionate.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces Michigan precedent defining cunnilingus as penetration for purposes of CSC-I and confirms that courts must draw reasonable inferences and resolve credibility choices in support of a jury’s verdict when reviewing evidentiary sufficiency.
It also illustrates the difficulty of overcoming the presumptive proportionality of a legislatively mandated sentence. Even where the minimum term may effectively keep an older defendant imprisoned for life, age and an otherwise clean criminal record do not by themselves establish cruel or unusual punishment.