## Facts

- Dr. Isadore Berlin, a gynecologist, examined the complainant, who had been his patient.
- After the examination ended and while the complainant was dressed, Dr. Berlin took the complainant’s hand and placed it on his crotch over his clothing.
- The complainant promptly removed her hand.
- The complainant testified that Dr. Berlin did not grab or pull her hand, did not hurt her, and did not attempt to prevent her from removing her hand.
- The complainant also testified that Dr. Berlin did not threaten her.
- The prosecutor charged Dr. Berlin with fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC‑IV) under MCL 750.520e(1)(a), alleging sexual contact accomplished by “force or coercion.”
- After the preliminary examination in district court, the judge refused to bind Dr. Berlin over for trial, finding insufficient evidence of the “force or coercion” element.
- The prosecutor filed a delayed application for leave to appeal in circuit court; the circuit court denied leave.
- The prosecutor then appealed by leave granted to the Michigan Court of Appeals, seeking review of the refusal to bind over.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence that a doctor took a patient’s hand and placed it on his clothed crotch—without threats, injury, restraint, or efforts to prevent withdrawal—established “force or coercion” under MCL 750.520e(1)(a) sufficient to support bindover for CSC‑IV.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s denial of the prosecutor’s delayed application for leave to appeal.
- The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to bind Dr. Berlin over because the record did not show “force or coercion” as required by MCL 750.520e(1)(a).

## Legal Principles

- At a preliminary examination, the prosecution must present evidence supporting probable cause that (1) a felony was committed and (2) the defendant committed it; if evidence is lacking on an essential element, the district court may refuse bindover.
- A district court’s bindover decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- CSC‑IV under MCL 750.520e(1)(a), as charged, requires proof of “sexual contact” and that the contact was accomplished by “force or coercion.”
- “Force or coercion” requires more than the physical contact itself; it contemplates compulsion such as physical force beyond the touching, restraint, threats, or comparable coercive conduct recognized by the CSC statutory scheme.
- Where the complainant’s testimony shows no injury, threats, restraint, or effort to keep the complainant from withdrawing, evidence may be insufficient to establish “force or coercion” for purposes of bindover under MCL 750.520e(1)(a).

## Conclusion

People v. Berlin holds that, even if a defendant’s conduct can qualify as sexual contact, the prosecution must still present evidence that the contact was accomplished by “force or coercion” to proceed under CSC‑IV, MCL 750.520e(1)(a); when a doctor merely placed a patient’s hand on his clothed crotch and the patient immediately removed it without threats, injury, restraint, or any attempt to prevent withdrawal, the district court acted within its discretion in refusing to bind the defendant over for trial, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.


People v. Berlin, 507 N.W.2d 816 (1993)