Jury instruction; Mens rea; Free speech rights; Sufficiency of the evidence; CSC IV; Sexual contact; Great weight of the evidence

The court concluded that (1) the trial court did not err by omitting the mens rea element of the CSC IV offense from its jury instructions and (2) defendant-Smith “failed to show that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence or that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction” of CSC IV. Because Smith was charged with CSC IV, a general intent offense, the trial court was not required to provide a mens rea instruction, and its omission did not render the jury instructions deficient. The trial court properly instructed the jury on the elements of CSC IV, enabling the jurors to determine whether the alleged conduct constituted sexual contact accomplished through force or coercion, as required for a conviction under MCL 750.520e(1)(b). In light of the foregoing, the jury instructions, when viewed in their entirety, sufficiently protected Smith’s rights and fairly presented the issues to be tried. The court also rejected his argument that his inappropriate remarks to the “complainant and other venue employees constituted protected speech under the First Amendment and were improperly used to establish that he intentionally touched complainant’s breast for a sexual purpose.” It found the prosecution’s use of his statements plainly fell within the bounds of permissible use. It noted the “statements were used as evidence of his intent in touching complainant for a sexual purpose, and Smith does not contend that their admission otherwise breached the Michigan Rules of Evidence.” As such, Smith’s free speech rights were not violated.