e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 86049
Opinion Date : 06/24/2026
e-Journal Date : 07/13/2026
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : People v. Smith
Practice Area(s) : Criminal Law
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Mariani, Murray, and Patel
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

CSC II; MCL 750.520c(1)(a); Assault with intent to commit CSC II (AWICSC II); MCL 750.520g(2); Sexual contact; Sexual arousal or gratification; MCL 750.520a; Directed verdict motion; Sufficiency of the evidence; Sentencing; Reasonableness of a within-guidelines sentence; People v Posey; Jury instructions; Waiver; Double jeopardy; People v Miller; People v Ream; Blockburger v United States

Summary

The court held that sufficient evidence supported defendant’s CSC II and AWICSC II convictions, that his within-guidelines sentence was proportionate, and that his convictions did not violate double jeopardy. Defendant was convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter when she was 11 or 12. The court first held that the CSC II conviction was supported because the victim testified that defendant massaged her breasts under her clothing and put his hands inside her underwear to massage her “crotch region,” and this could reasonably be construed as sexual contact for sexual arousal or gratification. The court reasoned that defendant admitted the conduct was consistent with “foreplay with his wife,” and although he claimed he mistook the victim for her mother, he conceded “it was probably [AB],” making credibility a jury question. The court next held that defendant failed to rebut the presumption that his within-guidelines sentence was proportionate because his lack of criminal record and claim that the incident was isolated were already reflected in the guidelines, and the trial court emphasized that he “violated the trust in a despicable way.” The court also rejected his challenge to the AWICSC II conviction because the same evidence allowed the jury to find an assault and specific intent to touch intimate areas for sexual gratification. The court held his jury-instruction issue was waived because counsel “expressly and explicitly approved” the instructions. Finally, it rejected his double-jeopardy claim because CSC II requires completed sexual contact, while AWICSC II does not, and AWICSC II requires specific intent while CSC II does not. Affirmed.

Full PDF Opinion