Second-degree criminal sexual conduct prosecutions often present complex factual and legal issues that require careful pretrial preparation. The threshold inquiry in every CSC-2 case is whether the conduct alleged constitutes "sexual contact" as defined by MCL 750.520a(q). In People v Piper, 223 Mich App 642 (1997), the court held that the determination of whether a touching can "reasonably be construed" as sexual in purpose is an objective inquiry to be assessed from the perspective of a reasonable person in light of all the circumstances, rather than from the subjective viewpoint of either the defendant or the complainant. This objective standard creates an opportunity for the defense to present evidence establishing that the touching at issue was consistent with a non-sexual interpretation.

Where the prosecution relies on the victim being under 13, the defense may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence identifying the defendant as the person who committed the act. Michigan's corroboration-not-required rule under MCL 750.520h means that a conviction may rest on the testimony of a child complainant alone, but that testimony must still meet the constitutional standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and defense counsel is entitled to rigorously cross-examine the child witness and challenge any inconsistencies in the child's account. People v Klosowski, 120 Mich App 666 (1982), recognized the importance of the opportunity to cross-examine child complainants in sex offense cases.

In cases involving allegations of force or coercion, the defense must examine whether the prosecution's theory of coercion falls within the statutory definition. The spectrum of coercive conduct defined by MCL 750.520b(1)(f) requires that the actor overcome resistance or secure consent through identified means of compulsion. Where the prosecution's theory rests on alleged psychological pressure or subtle manipulation, the defense may argue that the conduct does not rise to the level of coercion as defined by the statute. Attorney Maze examines text messages, emails, call records, and other communications to reconstruct the actual dynamics of the relationship between the parties.

Prior acts evidence presents particular challenges in CSC-2 cases, especially where the prosecution seeks to admit evidence of the defendant's alleged prior sexual misconduct under MCL 768.27a. The balancing test required by MRE 403 must account for the probative value of the prior acts evidence against its substantial danger of unfair prejudice—a danger that is especially acute in sex crimes cases where jury emotions can run high. In People v Watkins, 491 Mich 450 (2012), the Michigan Supreme Court confirmed that MCL 768.27a is subject to MRE 403 and that trial courts must conduct a genuine balancing analysis before admitting such evidence. Defense counsel should always request a Daubert/Davis-Frye hearing when the prosecution's prior acts evidence is supported by expert opinion regarding behavioral patterns or grooming conduct.

Sentencing under the Michigan Sentencing Guidelines for CSC-2 is governed by Offense Variables 1 through 19 and Prior Record Variables 1 through 7. Offense Variable 8, which addresses asportation of the victim, and Offense Variable 10, which addresses exploitation of a vulnerable victim, are frequently scored in CSC-2 cases and can significantly affect the recommended minimum guidelines range. Attorney Maze carefully reviews every guideline variable scoring, challenges any factual findings that are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and pursues all available arguments for a sentence within or below the guidelines range.