20250115_C366138_31_366138.Opn.Pdf, 20250115

Defendant Shadrach James Cunningham was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I) involving force or coercion with personal injury; he received concurrent sentences of 6 to 30 years in prison and mandatory lifetime electronic monitoring (LEM).
The case arose from an incident between Cunningham and the victim, both university students and friends, in a dormitory suite where sexual activity occurred; the victim alleged the acts were forcible and non-consensual, while Cunningham claimed consent.
After the incident, the victim immediately disclosed the assault to family, law enforcement, and a friend, and underwent medical examination revealing physical injuries consistent with her account.
On appeal, Cunningham challenged jury instructions, the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, the constitutionality of mandatory LEM under cruel or unusual punishment, and raised claims of cumulative error.
The Michigan Court of Appeals reviewed both preserved and unpreserved issues, ultimately affirming the convictions and the mandatory sentencing conditions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of jury instructions	Instructions were proper and reflected the law	Instructions, specifically on victim corroboration and consent, were flawed and prejudicial	Instructions were appropriate and not plain error
Jury unanimity for personal injury	Unanimity was not required on type of personal injury	Jury needed to unanimously agree on the manner of personal injury	Existing precedent: unanimity not required
Consent instruction	Jury reasonably instructed on consent element	Instruction failed to put burden on prosecution to prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt	Instructions sufficiently protected defendant’s rights
Weight of the evidence	Evidence sufficed for convictions	Testimony was physically implausible and not credible	Conviction not against great weight of evidence
Mandatory LEM as cruel or unusual	Mandatory LEM proportionate and constitutional for CSC-I	LEM is cruel or unusual as applied in this context	LEM not grossly disproportionate; constitutional
Cumulative error	No reversible error, so no cumulative error	Errors combined to render trial unfair	No cumulative error found

People v. Carines, 460 Mich 750 (plain error review standard)
People v. Hallak, 310 Mich App 555 (LEM not cruel/unusual for sex offenses)
People v. Asevedo, 217 Mich App 393 (jury unanimity on type of CSC-I personal injury not required)
People v. Montague, 338 Mich App 29 (review of jury instructions and their sufficiency)
People v. Comer, 500 Mich 278 (mandatory nature of LEM for CSC-I)