From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bristol

Michigan Court of Appeals
Dec 2, 1981
115 Mich. App. 236 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)

Summary

holding that penetration of the labia majora constitutes penetration of the genital opening

Summary of this case from People v. Ostrander

Opinion

Docket No. 49157.

Decided December 2, 1981. Leave to appeal denied, 414 Mich. 921.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William F. Delhey, Prosecuting Attorney, and Lynwood E. Noah, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Kurt R. Thornbladh, for defendant.

Before: T.M. BURNS, P.J., and D.E. HOLBROOK, JR., and K.B. GLASER, JJ.

Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.


Defendant appeals as of right from a jury conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. MCL 750.520b; MSA 28.788(2).

The victim, a four-year-old girl, in response to questioning by the attending doctor, said that defendant's penis actually went inside and she had experienced a great deal of pain at that time in the area of the vagina. There was an abrasion of the labia minora. The hymenal ring was intact, but according to the testimony this would not necessarily rule out "penetration". Testimony was introduced to show that "penetration" of the vagina to a physician would require an entry into the "introit" [sic] of the vagina which lies past the labia minora, and this could neither be confirmed nor refuted in the instant case. The testimony also established that the sensations described by the child could be caused by something less than an entry into the "introit" [sic] of the vagina. Defendant alleges there is no evidence of "intrusion, however slight, * * * into the genital * * * openings" to support the jury's verdict. MCL 750.520a(h); MSA 28.788(1)(h).

There appears to be no definition of "penetration" in Michigan case law with regard to sexual acts. The primary rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. Dussia v Monroe County Employees Retirement System, 386 Mich. 244, 248; 191 N.W.2d 307 (1971), Van Antwerp v State, 334 Mich. 593, 600; 55 N.W.2d 108 (1952). The words of a statute are to be given their ordinary meaning unless it appears from the context or otherwise in the statute that a different sense was intended. Advisory Opinion on Constitutionality of 1975 PA 227, 396 Mich. 465, 480; 242 N.W.2d 3 (1976), Hammons v Franzblau, 331 Mich. 572, 574; 50 N.W.2d 161 (1951). A reasonable construction should give consideration to the purpose of a statute and the object sought to be accomplished. King v Director, Midland County Dep't of Social Services, 73 Mich. App. 253, 258; 251 N.W.2d 270 (1977).

One object of the Legislature in providing for degrees of criminal sexual conduct was to differentiate between sexual acts which affected only the body surfaces of the victim and those which involved intrusion into the body cavities, in the instant case the female "genital opening". In view of the fact that the penetration of the labia majora is beyond the body surface, a definition of the female genital opening that excluded the labia would be inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of female genital openings. The fact that the Legislature used "genital opening" rather than "vagina" indicates an intent to include the labia. Such a definition is also consistent with that in most other jurisdictions. See 76 ALR3d 163, § 3, p 178.

Defendant's conviction is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Bristol

Michigan Court of Appeals
Dec 2, 1981
115 Mich. App. 236 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)

holding that penetration of the labia majora constitutes penetration of the genital opening

Summary of this case from People v. Ostrander

explaining that "penetration of the labia majora is beyond the body surface," and therefore the female genital opening includes the labia majora

Summary of this case from Mattison v. Perry

explaining that the female genital opening includes the labia

Summary of this case from David v. Romanowski

explaining that the female genital opening includes the labia

Summary of this case from Singleton v. Rivard

In People v Bristol, 115 Mich. App. 236; 320 N.W.2d 229 (1981), the Court of Appeals considered whether bruising of the labia majora, without other physical evidence, was sufficient to show penetration despite the child victim's intact hymen.

Summary of this case from People v. Whitfield

indicating that, at the very least, there must be evidence that the labia majora was penetrated to constitute a sexual penetration

Summary of this case from People v. Moore

discussing the broad definition of "penetration" in the context of criminal sexual conduct

Summary of this case from In re Baker

In People v Bristol, 115 Mich App 236, 238; 320 NW2d 229 (1982), this Court noted that the Legislature enacted different degrees of criminal sexual conduct to differentiate between sexual acts affecting only body surfaces (sexual contact) and sexual acts involving intrusions into body cavities (sexual penetration).

Summary of this case from People v. Gutierrez
Case details for

People v. Bristol

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v BRISTOL

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Dec 2, 1981

Citations

115 Mich. App. 236 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)
320 N.W.2d 229

Citing Cases

People v. Strandberg

Moreover, the instruction was a correct statement of the law as this Court has long recognized that, as used…

Peoplev. Robinson

This Court has held that the female "genital opening" includes the labia majora. People v Bristol, 115 Mich…