Defenses to Sex Crime Charges in Michigan: What the Law Says

Michigan statutes, jury instructions and court decisions provide for some defenses to sex crime charges, limit others, and reject others. The starting point in every case is the same: a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent, the prosecutor must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defendant is not required to prove innocence or to do anything.^[1]

This page is a map. It explains what the law says about each defense, who decides it and which side has to prove it, and links to the page that covers it in depth. Each row gives the authority it rests on, and a defense the cited authority rejects is labelled "Rejected."

This page explains the law. It is not legal advice, not a guide to strategy, and not a recommendation to rely on any defense; nothing here says which defense, if any, fits a particular case.

Defenses at a glance

Defense or claim	What Michigan law says	Who decides, and whose burden	Full page
The prosecutor has not proved an element	If the prosecutor has not proven every element beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must find the defendant not guilty.[9]	The fact-finder; the prosecutor's burden.[1][9]	What happens at a CSC trial
Consent	Limited. Can be utilized to negate the elements of force or coercion. The benchbook states it is inapplicable to offenses involving victims under 16, to offenses requiring proof of incapacity, and to the mental health professional provision. For provisions on complainants aged 16 or older defined by the actor's position, the sources state no rule.[2][3][4][10][11]	Jury, where there is evidence of consent; the benchbook states that once the defendant produces enough evidence to put consent in controversy, the prosecutor bears the burden of disproving it beyond a reasonable doubt.[12][13]	The consent defense
Mistake about age	Rejected. Michigan does not recognize a reasonable-mistake-of-age defense in cases of statutory rape (People v Cash, Michigan Supreme Court, 1984).[5]	Not applicable; the Court said the actual, not the apparent, age of the complainant governs.[14]	Mistake of age is not a defense
Mistake about mental or physical condition	Limited. Applies only where the statutory language requires that the actor knows or has reason to know of the condition; a defendant who makes a reasonable mistake may not be criminally liable.[15]	Judged by a reasonable-person, objective standard, not the defendant's subjective perception.[16]	Incapacitation, intoxication and consent
The allegation is untrue	Not a separate defense in the sources; witness credibility is a question for the fact-finder.[17]	The fact-finder; the prosecutor's burden. Under MRE 607 any party may attack a witness's credibility, within the limits of the rules of evidence and the rape-shield statute.[18][19]	False allegations and credibility
Identity or alibi	The prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was actually there; the defendant does not have to prove he or she was somewhere else.[20]	Jury; the prosecutor's burden. A defendant in a felony case who proposes to offer alibi testimony files written notice.[20][21]	Identity, alibi and DNA
Entrapment	A two-prong, modified objective test focused on police conduct; a defendant is entitled to dismissal of charges if either prong is satisfied (People v Jade, July 31, 2026).[22][23]	Trial judge, at a separate evidentiary hearing; the defendant's burden by a preponderance of the evidence.[7][6]	Entrapment in sting cases
Statute of limitations	Depends on the offense and its date. An indictment for first-degree CSC may be found and filed at any time; other offenses have set periods, changed for second- and third-degree CSC committed on or after April 2, 2025.[24][25][26]	Described in the Criminal Proceedings Benchbook as an affirmative, waivable, nonjurisdictional defense; factual disputes are questions for a jury.[27][28]	The limitations defense
The accused's own intoxication	Rejected by statute for voluntarily and knowingly consumed alcohol or drugs: "it is not a defense to any crime." The exception is an affirmative defense to a specific intent crime for a legally obtained and properly used medication or other substance.[8]	For the exception, the defendant's burden by a preponderance of the evidence.[8]	Intoxication of the accused
Marriage to the complainant	A person may be charged and convicted even though the victim is his or her legal spouse, but not solely because the spouse is mentally incapable.[29]	Rejected by statute, with the one limit stated.[29]	Sex crime myths
"There was no real child" (sting cases)	Rejected in People v Thousand (Michigan Supreme Court, 2001): the nonexistence of a minor victim did not give rise to a viable defense to the attempt charge in that case.[30]	The Court held the circuit court erred in dismissing that charge on the basis of "legal impossibility."[30]	Online sting operations

How is a "defense" different from holding the prosecutor to the burden?

Some of what is called a defense is a claim that the prosecutor has not proved an element. The jury instruction on the burden of proof, which must be given in every case, tells jurors the defendant is not required to prove innocence or to do anything.^[1] Identity is an example: jurors are told the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was actually there when the alleged crime was committed.^[20]

Other defenses add something the defense has to raise or prove. A note to the burden-of-proof instruction says that for some affirmative defenses a defendant must produce evidence.^[9] Consent is described in its instruction's Use Note as an affirmative defense, and the Use Note says the instruction should be given only where there is evidence of consent.^[12]

Entrapment is different again. The Michigan Supreme Court describes it as an issue irrelevant to guilt or innocence, decided by the trial judge on evidence presented outside the jury's presence.^[6][7]

Which defenses do Michigan authorities reject or restrict?

• Consent of a person under 16 (rejected). The benchbook states that because a person under the age of 16 is legally incapable of consenting to a sexual act, consent is inapplicable for all CSC offenses involving victims under 16.^[3]
• Consent where the offense requires proof of incapacity (rejected). The benchbook states that a victim who is mentally incapable, mentally incapacitated or physically helpless is presumed legally incapable of consent under the CSC Act.^[4] Whether the condition existed can be disputed.^[12]
• Consent of a mental health professional's client (rejected by statute). For the fourth-degree provision on mental health professionals, the statute says the consent of the victim is not a defense.^[10]
• Mistake of age (rejected). In People v Cash the Michigan Supreme Court said the actual, and not the apparent, age of the complainant governs in statutory rape offenses.^[14]
• Close-in-age, or "Romeo and Juliet" (rejected as a defense to the charge). The Court of Appeals has said that if the Legislature had intended courts to consider the age differential between the two people, it could have included that in the CSC statutes.^[31] An age-gap element does appear in one fourth-degree provision, where the actor is 5 or more years older than a person aged 13 to 15.^[32]
• Lack of corroboration or resistance (not required by statute). In prosecutions under MCL 750.520b to 750.520g, the testimony of a victim need not be corroborated, and a victim need not resist the actor.^[33][34]
• Voluntary intoxication (rejected by statute, with one exception). It is not a defense to any crime that the defendant was under the influence of or impaired by a voluntarily and knowingly consumed alcoholic liquor, drug or other substance; the exception is the medication defense to a specific intent crime.^[8]

Evidence and notice rules covered elsewhere in this guide

Three sets of rules bear on the defenses above and have their own pages.

• The rape-shield statute. In prosecutions under MCL 750.520b to 750.520g, evidence of the victim's sexual conduct is not admitted except in two listed categories and on findings by the judge, and a defendant who proposes to offer either files a written motion and offer of proof within 10 days after the arraignment on the information.^[19][35][36] In People v Hackett the Michigan Supreme Court recognized that in certain limited situations admission of such evidence may be required to preserve the right to confrontation, and also said courts should always favor exclusion where exclusion would not unconstitutionally abridge that right.^[37][38] See Michigan's rape-shield law.
• Other-acts evidence. In a case charging a listed offense against a minor, evidence that the defendant committed another listed offense against a minor is admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.^[39] See Other-acts evidence.
• Notice rules. In a felony case alibi testimony requires written notice, and under MCR 6.201(B) a defendant who intends to introduce expert evidence of mental illness or intellectual disability bearing on specific intent gives written notice not less than 30 days before the trial date, or at such other time as the court directs.^[21][40]

Claims that are not defenses

A polygraph. A defendant alleged to have committed first- through fourth-degree CSC or assault with intent to commit CSC shall be given a polygraph examination if the defendant requests it.^[41] Testimony concerning a defendant's polygraph examination is not admissible in a criminal prosecution.^[42] See Polygraph tests in CSC cases.

The complainant no longer wants to proceed. The Court of Appeals has said a crime victim may not determine whether the prosecution of a crime goes forward or is dismissed.^[43] In People v Morrow, where a complainant had given two accounts, the court said it is the province of the jury to determine which is the truth.^[44]

Being charged twice for one incident. Double jeopardy protects against a second prosecution after acquittal or conviction and against multiple punishments for the same offense.^[45] The Court of Appeals has held that convictions of both first- and second-degree CSC on the same facts do not violate double jeopardy; the Michigan Supreme Court has said that one act of penetration accompanied by more than one aggravating circumstance may give rise to only one criminal charge for purposes of trial, conviction, and sentencing.^[46][47]

What people get wrong

"A reasonable mistake about age is a defense." The Michigan Supreme Court rejected a reasonable-mistake-of-age defense in People v Cash.^[5]

"The jury decides entrapment." The trial judge decides it.^[7]

"Consent is always a defense." The benchbook states that consent is inapplicable for all CSC offenses involving victims under 16.^[3] The sentencing consequences that make these questions matter are set out in the CSC penalties chart.