"He Said, She Said": Michigan CSC Cases Without Other Witnesses

Some sexual assault allegations concern events that only two people were present for. Michigan law addresses that directly: "The testimony of a victim need not be corroborated in prosecutions under sections 520b to 520g," the criminal sexual conduct sections of the Penal Code.^[1] That rule does not lower the standard of proof. The prosecutor must still prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is the jury that decides whom to believe.^[3][6]

If you are in immediate danger, call 911.^[7] The National Sexual Assault Hotline offers free, confidential support 24/7 at 800-656-HOPE (4673).^[8] Michigan's VOICES4 Hotline is free, confidential and anonymous, with advocates available 24/7 by call or text at 855-864-2374.^[9]

This page is written for anyone trying to understand how such a case is decided: a person accused, a complainant, a witness or a family member. It explains what the no-corroboration statute does and does not mean, what jurors are told about credibility and the standard of proof, and the evidence rules that shape how credibility is tested.

What does MCL 750.520h say?

The whole section is one sentence: "The testimony of a victim need not be corroborated in prosecutions under sections 520b to 520g."^[1] Those sections cover first- through fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct and assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct.^[1] The current criminal sexual conduct law dates from 1974 PA 266, effective April 1, 1975.^[10]

The Sexual Assault Benchbook quotes the Court of Appeals on the rule's purpose: it "is designed to permit a verdict to withstand a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a case in which the only testimony against the defendant is that of the complainant." The same passage adds that the purpose "is not to save verdicts in which inadmissible corroborating evidence is introduced."^[11] The benchbook also quotes the statement that it is "a well-established rule that a jury may convict on the uncorroborated evidence of a CSC victim."^[11]

A companion section says resistance is not required either: "A victim need not resist the actor in prosecution under sections 520b to 520g."^[5]

What the jury is told about corroboration

The model instruction, M Crim JI 20.25, reads: "To prove this charge, it is not necessary that there be evidence other than the testimony of [name complainant], if that testimony proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."^[2]

Two features of the instruction are worth noticing. It is conditional: the testimony has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And its Use Note calls it "a permissive instruction," which is "especially appropriate where the defense has argued lack of corroboration."^[2] The matching instruction on resistance, M Crim JI 20.26, tells jurors that the prosecutor does not have to show that the complainant resisted the defendant.^[5]

The burden of proof does not move

M Crim JI 3.2 is the instruction on the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, and its Use Note says it "must be given in every case."^[3] It tells jurors:

• "A person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent," and the presumption "continues throughout the trial and entitles the defendant to a verdict of not guilty unless you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that [he / she] is guilty."^[3]
• "The prosecutor must prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant is not required to prove [his / her] innocence or to do anything."^[3]
• "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt. A reasonable doubt is a fair, honest doubt growing out of the evidence or lack of evidence. It is not merely an imaginary or possible doubt, but a doubt based on reason and common sense."^[12]

Read together with M Crim JI 20.25, the result is this: one witness's testimony can be enough, but only if it leaves the jurors firmly convinced.^[2][12]

How jurors are told to judge credibility

M Crim JI 3.6, which its Use Note says should be given in every case, starts from the jurors' role: "You must decide which witnesses you believe and how important you think their testimony is. You do not have to accept or reject everything a witness said. You are free to believe all, none, or part of any person's testimony."^[4]

The instruction says there "is no fixed set of rules for judging whether you believe a witness," and offers questions that may help:^[4]

• Was the witness able to see or hear clearly?^[4]
• Did the witness seem to have a good memory?^[4]
• How did the witness look and act while testifying?^[4]
• Does the witness's age or maturity affect how the testimony is judged?^[4]
• Does the witness have any bias, prejudice, or personal interest in how the case is decided?^[4]
• Have there been any promises, threats, suggestions, or other influences that affected how the witness testified?^[4]
• Does the witness have any special reason to tell the truth, or any special reason to lie?^[4]
• All in all, how reasonable does the testimony seem when the jurors think about all the other evidence in the case?^[4]

The instruction is not written for one kind of witness; it speaks of "any person's testimony."^[4] A separate instruction, given on request, says a police officer's testimony "is to be judged by the same standards you use to evaluate the testimony of any other witness."^[13]

Disagreement is not the same as lying

Jurors are told that when witnesses disagree they "should think about whether the disagreement involves something important or not, and whether you think someone is lying or is simply mistaken. People see and hear things differently, and witnesses may testify honestly but simply be wrong about what they thought they saw or remembered."^[14]

Bias has to be set aside

The instruction also directs jurors to "set aside any bias or prejudice" based on a witness's disability, race, national origin or ethnicity, gender, gender identity or sexual orientation, religion, age, or socio-economic status.^[15]

How credibility is tested, and the limits

Several rules of evidence govern how credibility may be tested and what the jury may hear. Each has its own page in this guide.

Rule	What it does	Where to read more
Cross-examination	A limitation that prevents a defendant from placing before the jury facts from which bias, prejudice, or lack of credibility of a prosecution witness might be inferred denies the constitutional right of confrontation; the right does not extend to irrelevant issues.[16]	Impeachment and prior false accusations
Rape shield	MCL 750.520j bars evidence of the complainant's sexual conduct, subject to two narrow exceptions.[17][18]	Michigan's rape shield law
No vouching by experts	An expert may not testify that the abuse occurred, vouch for a victim's veracity, or testify whether the defendant is guilty.[19]	Expert witnesses in child sexual abuse cases
Other acts	In cases involving minors, MCL 768.27a allows evidence of another listed offense against a minor for its bearing on any relevant matter.[20]	Other acts against minors
A young child's first statement	MRE 803A permits corroborative testimony where the child was under age 10 when the statement was made.[21]	The tender-years rule

Consent is a separate issue with its own jury instruction; see the consent defense in CSC cases.

After the verdict: how appellate courts treat credibility

On appeal, credibility is treated as the fact-finder's question. The Sexual Assault Benchbook quotes the Court of Appeals: "witness credibility is a question for the fact-finder."^[6] Questions about credibility are not sufficient grounds for relief unless the testimony "contradicts indisputable facts or laws," is "patently incredible or defies physical realities," is "so inherently implausible that it could not be believed by a reasonable juror," or "has been seriously impeached and the case is marked by uncertainties and discrepancies."^[22]

On a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the benchbook quotes the Court of Appeals that "the question is not whether there was conflicting evidence, but rather whether there was evidence that the jury, sitting as the trier of fact, could choose to believe and, if it did so believe that evidence, that the evidence would justify convicting defendant."^[23] The same passage notes that circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences from it can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of a crime.^[23]

What people get wrong

"Without physical evidence or another witness, there is no case." The statute says a victim's testimony need not be corroborated.^[1]

"The law tells the jury to believe the accuser." It does not. The instruction on corroboration is conditional on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and jurors are free to believe all, none, or part of any witness's testimony.^[2][4]

"The accused has to prove it did not happen." The defendant is not required to prove innocence or to do anything.^[3]

"If the complainant did not fight back, it was not a crime." Resistance is not required.^[5]

"A witness who takes back a statement ends the case." In People v Morrow the Court of Appeals said it is for the jury to determine which of a complainant's accounts is the truth.^[24] A crime victim may not determine whether a prosecution goes forward or is dismissed.^[25] See who decides to charge a sex crime.

For the order of events at trial, see what happens at a CSC trial. For people who will be testifying, see what to expect as a witness. The defenses that may be raised are outlined in defenses to sex crime charges, and other common misunderstandings are collected in Michigan sex crime myths.