Michigan's CSC-3 statute occupies a middle position in the criminal sexual conduct framework, capturing sexual penetration that is wrongful but does not involve the most severe aggravating circumstances of CSC-1—such as multiple actors, personal injury, or a victim under 13. The doctrinal boundary between CSC-1 and CSC-3 is therefore a frequent battleground in charging and negotiation. When the prosecution has charged CSC-1 and the evidence does not clearly support the most serious aggravating circumstances, defense counsel should aggressively pursue a reduction to CSC-3 or a trial strategy aimed at establishing that the facts support only a CSC-3 or lesser conviction.

The "penetration by force or coercion" provision of MCL 750.520d(1)(b) has generated significant appellate litigation regarding the scope of the coercion definition. In People v Brown, 294 Mich App 377 (2011), the court addressed whether psychological pressure and emotional manipulation could constitute coercion under the statute in the absence of explicit threats. The court held that coercion requires the actor to overcome the victim's resistance through conduct within the statutory definition, and that subtle emotional influence alone does not satisfy the coercion element. Defense counsel must scrutinize the prosecution's coercion theory against the specific language of MCL 750.520b(1)(f) as incorporated by reference into CSC-3.

The rape shield law, MCL 750.520j, applies fully to CSC-3 prosecutions. In People v Hackett, 421 Mich 338 (1984), the Michigan Supreme Court held that the constitutional right of confrontation may override the shield in limited circumstances, particularly where the prior sexual history evidence tends to show an alternative source of physical injury or a prior consensual relationship directly relevant to the consent issue. Defense counsel seeking to use such evidence must comply strictly with the pretrial motion and offer of proof requirements of MCL 750.520j(2), and must be prepared to argue the constitutional necessity of the evidence at an in camera hearing.

Where a CSC-3 charge involves a victim between 13 and 15 years old, the prosecution will often seek to present evidence of prior grooming conduct under MCL 768.27a and MRE 404(b). In People v Watkins, 491 Mich 450 (2012), the Michigan Supreme Court confirmed that courts must apply a genuine MRE 403 balancing analysis before admitting other-acts sexual misconduct evidence. The defense should request a detailed MRE 403 record to preserve any challenge to the admission of such evidence for appeal. Where the prior acts evidence involves alleged misconduct with a different victim, the defense should obtain independent evidence bearing on that allegation to challenge its underlying reliability.

At sentencing, CSC-3 convictions are subject to the Michigan Sentencing Guidelines, and the appropriate guidelines grid placement depends on offense variable scoring that can vary significantly based on whether personal injury occurred, the relative vulnerability of the victim, and the nature of the relationship between the parties. Attorney Maze carefully reviews every guideline variable, challenges unsupported factual determinations at sentencing, and is prepared to file a motion for resentencing on remand when guidelines errors require correction.