## Facts

- A 15-year-old complainant (about one month short of 16) met George E. Cash, Jr. (age 30) at a Detroit bus station while she was running away from home.
- After talking for several hours, Cash persuaded her to ride with him in his car to a motel in Marshall, Michigan.
- Two acts of sexual intercourse occurred at the motel.
- After Cash fell asleep, the complainant left the room, notified motel staff, and police were called.
- At the preliminary examination, the complainant admitted she told Cash she was 17; Cash similarly reported to police that she said she was 17.
- Cash was charged with two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC III) for sexual penetration with a person between ages 13 and 16, under MCL 750.520d(1)(a).
- Cash sought a jury instruction recognizing a reasonable mistake-of-age defense (or dismissal based on collateral estoppel tied to the complainant’s statement that she was 17); the trial court denied the request and instructed that mistake of age was no defense.
- The trial court limited cross-examination of the complainant and her mother about the complainant’s “lifestyle.”
- Cash argued the prosecutor’s evidence and argument improperly suggested forcible rape even though the prosecution proceeded on an age-based CSC III theory.
- Cash was convicted on both counts; the Court of Appeals affirmed; the Michigan Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether a reasonable mistake of fact as to the complainant’s age is a defense to CSC III under MCL 750.520d(1)(a).
2. Whether limiting cross-examination about the complainant’s “lifestyle” was an abuse of discretion.
3. Whether prosecutorial references to a forcible-rape theory denied the defendant a fair trial.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the convictions.
- A reasonable mistake as to the complainant’s age is not a defense to CSC III under MCL 750.520d(1)(a).
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding “lifestyle” cross-examination.
- The prosecutor’s references to force did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial in light of the record and instructions.

## Legal Principles

- CSC III under MCL 750.520d(1)(a) is strict liability as to the complainant’s age; a defendant’s reasonable belief that the complainant was 16 or older does not bar conviction.
- Legislative restructuring of Michigan’s sex-offense statutes did not indicate an intent to add a mistake-of-age defense to the age-based penetration offense involving complainants aged 13 to 16.
- Trial courts have discretion to exclude cross-examination that is minimally probative of elements or credibility and that risks diverting the trial to the complainant’s character rather than the statutory elements.
- Prosecutorial argument or evidence that goes beyond the charged theory does not warrant reversal absent a showing of substantial prejudice when considered in the full context of the trial and the court’s instructions.

## Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court held that CSC III based on sexual penetration with a 13-to-16-year-old imposes strict liability regarding age, rejected a reasonable mistake-of-age defense, and upheld the trial court’s evidentiary limits and the fairness of the trial despite references suggesting force.


People v. Cash, 419 Mich. 230, 351 N.W.2d 822 (Mich. 1984)