Court Opinion

ID: 9702445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:11:47.158727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:37.542313
License: Public Domain

D. E. Holbrook, J.
(dissenting). This writer must respectfully dissent. This plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily and with proper assistance of counsel. The only error which the majority finds is the failure to graphically describe the sexual conduct herein which resulted in defendant’s plea conviction on a charge of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree. MCLA 750.520c(l)(a); MSA 28.788(3)(l)(a). This writer firmly believes that de*51fendant did supply sufficient evidence of sexual criminal misconduct to justify affirmance of his plea conviction.
During the plea proceedings defendant admitted taking his finger and rubbing it between the legs of a seven-year-old girl. The judge, the attorneys, everyone in the courtroom and especially defendant knew exactly what he did. We certainly can take notice of the "oddities” of the English language and the colloquial use of expressions such as "between the legs”. No one in the courtroom had any doubt as to what defendant did. The Supreme Court has recently reiterated that a factual basis is sufficient if an "inculpatory inference can reasonably be drawn by a jury from the facts admitted by the defendant”. Guilty Plea Cases, 395 Mich 96, 130; 235 NW2d 132 (1975), People v Haack, 396 Mich 367, 376; 240 NW2d 704 (1976). This writer firmly believes that an inculpatory inference, indeed the only inference, was that defendant did indeed supply a sufficient factual basis.
Second-degree criminal misconduct occurs when one "engages in sexual contact with another person and that other person is under 13 years of age”. MCLA 750.520c; MSA 28.788(3). Sexual conduct is defined as an intentional touching of intimate parts, MCLA 750.520a(g); MSA 28.788(l)(g). Intimate parts are defined as "the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh”. This is exactly what defendant admitted touching. In People v Zuniga, 56 Mich App 231; 223 NW2d 652 (1974), the defendant pled guilty to taking indecent liberties with a four-year-old child in violation of MCLA 750.336; MSA 28.568 (subsequently repealed by 1974 PA 266, § 3 and replaced by MCLA 750.520b to d; MSA 28.788[2] to [4]). The following excerpt from that case and this Court’s comment in that case are instructive:
*52" ’Q. [The court] All right, what happened?
" ’A. [The defendant] Well, I started to touch her and everything.
" 'Q. All right, was she dressed at the time?
" A. Yes.
" ’Q. And did you remove her clothing?
" A. No.
" ’Q. What did you remove? What happened?
" A. She removed her clothes herself.
" 'Q. She did. Then what happened?
" A. Well, I started touchin’ her, playin’ with her and everything.
" 'Q. With her private parts?
" A. Yeah, you know.
" 'Q. You know what I mean by that?
" A. Yeah, I think I do.’
Defense counsel construed the testimony quoted above as evidencing no more than the fact that defendant was playing with the child and accidentally touched her genitals. We read the record as showing that defendant was playing with the child’s genitals.” (Emphasis in original.) 56 Mich App at 234-235.
This Court affirmed defendant’s conviction in Zu-niga. This writer is convinced that the instant case speaks with clarity as to the exact conduct on the part of defendant. Whether defendant admitted touching the girl’s "private parts” or rubbing "his finger between her legs” is of little significance. All those concerned knew exactly what defendant did herein to justify his conviction under the criminal sexual conduct act.
This writer votes to affirm defendant’s conviction.