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
- Whether a reasonable mistake of fact as to the complainant’s age is a defense to CSC III under MCL 750.520d(1)(a).
- Whether limiting cross-examination about the complainant’s “lifestyle” was an abuse of discretion.
- 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.