The prosecution of first-degree criminal sexual conduct under MCL 750.520b requires the government to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, both the act of sexual penetration and the existence of at least one statutory aggravating circumstance. While the absence of corroboration does not bar conviction under MCL 750.520h, Michigan courts have consistently emphasized that the jury's assessment of witness credibility is paramount. In People v Lemmon, 456 Mich 625 (1998), the Michigan Supreme Court addressed the standard for granting a new trial based on the great weight of the evidence and noted that where conviction depends substantially on credibility determinations, a defendant who can marshal extrinsic evidence contradicting the complainant's account is entitled to have that evidence evaluated by the factfinder.

Consent is not a statutory defense to CSC-1 when the victim is under 13 years of age or when the defendant is in a position of authority. MCL 750.520i(1) codifies this absolute prohibition. For charges involving adult complainants, however, consent remains a central defense, and the defendant may introduce evidence tending to show that the complainant consented or that the defendant reasonably and in good faith believed consent had been given. In People v Haywood, 209 Mich App 217 (1995), the court addressed the extent to which a good-faith belief in consent may negate the requisite mental state for sexual penetration accomplished by coercion.

The use of prior sexual conduct evidence by the prosecution, particularly evidence of prior sexual acts by the defendant against persons other than the complainant, is governed by both MRE 404(b) and the special provision of MCL 768.27a. In People v Watkins, 491 Mich 450 (2012), the Michigan Supreme Court held that MCL 768.27a permits admission of prior acts of sexual misconduct against minors even where such evidence might be excluded under MRE 404(b), subject to a MRE 403 balancing test. Defense counsel must be prepared to challenge the admission of such evidence on both constitutional and evidentiary grounds, and to request a limiting instruction when the evidence is admitted over objection.

When the defense challenges the reliability of forensic evidence—DNA, serology, or forensic medical examinations—the admissibility of that evidence is governed by MRE 702 and the standards established in People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 58 (2007), and its progeny. The court must determine whether the scientific evidence is based on sufficient facts or data, whether it is the product of reliable principles and methods, and whether the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. A thorough defense attorney will retain independent experts to review prosecution laboratory reports, chain of custody documentation, and the analyst's methodology before trial.

Sentencing in CSC-1 cases is governed by the Michigan Sentencing Guidelines, MCL 769.34, and may be subject to mandatory minimums under MCL 750.520b(2). The most severe mandatory minimum—25 years—applies when the victim is under 13 and the defendant has a prior listed offense. The sentencing court is also required to impose lifetime electronic monitoring under MCL 750.520n for convictions involving victims under 13. Attorney Maze carefully evaluates every aspect of the guidelines scoring, challenges any inaccurate offense variable scoring, and advocates vigorously for a departure from the guidelines range when the facts warrant it.