The underestimation of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct charges is among the most consequential mistakes a person accused of this offense can make. The registration requirement imposed by Michigan's Sex Offenders Registration Act, MCL 28.721 et seq., transforms what appears on its face to be a misdemeanor conviction into a lifetime government surveillance obligation with far-reaching restrictions on where a registered person may live, work, and travel. In People v Betts, 507 Mich 527 (2021), the Michigan Supreme Court confronted the punitive character of SORA's requirements and held that retroactive application of the 2011 amendments to SORA constituted punishment under the ex post facto clauses of both the United States Constitution and the Michigan Constitution. While Betts directly addressed the retroactivity problem, its analysis confirms that SORA is punitive in nature—a finding with important implications for anyone contemplating a plea to a CSC-4 charge.

The consent defense is available in CSC-4 prosecutions, unlike CSC-2 when the victim is under 13. MCL 750.520i(1) excludes consent as a defense to CSC-2 when the victim is under 13, but CSC-4 does not carry the same absolute bar. Where the complaining witness was 16 or older and the defendant is not in a position of authority, a consent defense may be legally available. The practical challenge is that consent defenses require the jury to accept the defendant's account of the encounter over the complainant's, placing the credibility contest front and center. Attorney Maze carefully evaluates the evidentiary record for text messages, social media communications, witness observations, and other objective evidence that can corroborate the defendant's account of consensual contact.

The rape shield law, MCL 750.520j, limits the use of the complainant's prior sexual conduct as evidence, but the recognized exceptions established in People v Hackett, 421 Mich 338 (1984), apply equally to CSC-4 prosecutions. The Michigan Court of Appeals has repeatedly emphasized that in camera hearings under MCL 750.520j(2) are essential procedural safeguards that cannot be short-circuited, and that the constitutional right of confrontation may require admission of prior sexual conduct evidence where it is directly relevant to an issue other than the complainant's credibility as a sexual person.

Plea negotiations in CSC-4 cases should always be evaluated against the backdrop of SORA registration consequences. A plea to an alternative offense that does not trigger registration—such as assault and battery under MCL 750.81 or disorderly conduct under MCL 750.167—may represent a dramatically superior outcome even if it involves a somewhat higher fine or probationary period. Attorney Maze is experienced in negotiating creative resolutions in sex crime cases that eliminate or minimize the registration exposure that would result from a CSC conviction.

At sentencing, the Michigan Sentencing Guidelines applicable to CSC-4 as a misdemeanor differ from the felony grid used for CSC-1 through CSC-3. However, probationary conditions for sex crime convictions often include mandatory counseling, polygraph examinations, internet use restrictions, and contact restrictions that are highly burdensome. Attorney Maze advocates at sentencing for conditions that are reasonable in scope and supported by legitimate rehabilitative or public safety justifications, challenging any conditions that are punitive in excess of what the offense warrants.