Court Opinion

ID: 9503870
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:49:17.51835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:45.002564
License: Public Domain

CAVANAGH, J.
(concurring in the result only). I concur with the result reached by the lead opinion affirming the Court of Appeals decision to vacate defendant’s *143conviction for second-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC II), MCL 750.520c. Defendant did not have adequate notice that he faced the charge of CSC II, so convicting him of that offense would violate his right to due process. However, I do not join the lead opinion in full because, as Justice CORRIGAN has noted, I believe the lead opinion’s characterization of the word “inferior” is contrary to the established definition and historical use of the term. See People v Mendoza, 468 Mich 527, 550-551; 664 NW2d 685 (2003) (opinion by CAVANAGH, J.).
Kelly, J., concurred with Cavanagh, J.