## Facts

- Phillip Premo was a teacher at a public high school; the complainants were his female students.
- The prosecution charged Premo with three counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC), based on three separate incidents involving three different students.
- At the preliminary examination, each student testified that Premo intentionally pinched her buttocks on school premises.
- Premo moved to quash the information, arguing the conduct did not meet the statutory “force or coercion” element for fourth-degree CSC.
- The circuit court denied the motion, ruling the conduct satisfied the force requirement as a matter of law.

## Issues

1. Whether intentional, nonconsensual pinching of a student’s buttocks by a teacher is sufficient evidence of “force or coercion” under Michigan’s fourth-degree CSC statute to support bindover and defeat a motion to quash.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order denying the motion to quash.
- The court held that the intentional, nonconsensual touching described at the preliminary examination constituted “force” to accomplish sexual contact under the statute.
- The court further held the conduct could also constitute “coercion” in a school setting given the teacher’s position of authority over students.
- The court rejected the argument that “force or coercion” is limited to the enumerated examples cross-referenced in the CSC statutes.

## Legal Principles

- For fourth-degree CSC, “force or coercion” includes, but is not limited to, the circumstances listed in the statute; the enumerated circumstances are illustrative rather than exclusive.
- “Force” may be satisfied by the physical act used to accomplish the nonconsensual sexual contact, even if the physical force is slight and without separate violence, restraint, or threats.
- A teacher’s authority over students may support a finding of “coercion” for intentional, nonconsensual sexual touching in the school environment.
- A motion to quash is properly denied where the evidence at preliminary examination, viewed favorably to the prosecution, supports each element of the charged offense for bindover.

## Conclusion

The court held that a teacher’s intentional, nonconsensual pinching of students’ buttocks could constitute force (and coercion in context) under Michigan’s fourth-degree CSC statute, so the charges were properly bound over and the information was not quashed.


People v. Premo, 540 N.W.2d 715 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995)