Court Opinion

ID: 9728714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:14:49.647905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:51.275513
License: Public Domain

*153Cynar, J.
(concurring in part, dissenting in part). I concur in the majority’s disposition of issue I. The trial judge’s improper exercise of discretion in ruling upon the admissibility of the prior convictions requires a new trial.
I also concur in the analysis of issue II which relates to the attempt instructions.
However I disagree with the analysis of issue III, to the extent that it holds that CSC III subsection (b) and CSC IV subsection (a) are not lesser-included offenses of CSC I subsection (d)(ii). I find no support for the majority’s proposition that a defendant charged with CSC I subsection (d)(ii) would not receive fair notice of possible prosecution for CSC III or CSC IV.
Moreover, an examination of the elements of the offenses indicates that this is a situation of necessarily lesser-included offenses. CSC IV subsection (a) requires proof of:
1) sexual contact and
2) force or coercion.
CSC III subsection (b) requires proof of:
1) sexual penetration and
2) force or coercion.
Since there can be no penetration without contact, People v Thompson, 76 Mich App 705, 708; 257 NW2d 268 (1977), CSC IV subsection (a) is a necessarily lesser-included offense of CSC III subsection (b) .
CSC I subsection (d)(ii) requires proof of:
1) sexual penetration,
2) force or coercion, and
3) one or more aiders and abettors.
Thus, CSC I subsection (d)(ii) consists of all the elements of CSC III subsection (b), plus the additional element of an aider and abettor. Since proof of CSC I subsection (d)(ii) necessarily proves all the *154elements of CSC III subsection (b) and CSC IV subsection (a), these latter offenses are necessarily included offenses of CSC I subsection (d)(ii). People v Ora Jones, 395 Mich 379, 387; 236 NW2d 461 (1975).1
Although disagreeing with the majority’s analysis of issue III, I am in complete agreement with their apparent goal of cutting back on the requirements of Ora Jones. The requirement that the jury be instructed on all requested lesser-included offenses creates jury confusion and confounds both the bench and the bar. This is especially true in a case such as this where Ora Jones requires the jury to be instructed on 14 separate charges. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will save us from the confusion engendered by Ora Jones. However, since we are still bound by Ora Jones and its progeny, I must conclude that the trial judge at the new trial must, upon request, instruct the jury on CSC III, CSC IV and attempts to commit the same.

 In a similar fashion the majority points out that these offenses are lesser-included offenses of CSC I subsection (f), which requires proof of 1) sexual penetration, 2) force or coercion, and 3) injury to the victim. What the majority fails to see is that CSC III subsection (b) and CSC IV subsection (a) are necessarily included offenses of both CSC I subsection (d)(ii) and subsection (f).