People of Michigan v. Christian William Hess, 327890

Defendant (then 17) pursued a secret relationship with a 13-year-old over months via texts, social media, shared activities, and overnight stays.
He avoided meeting her family, lied about stopping contact, and repeatedly arranged to see her when she was forbidden.
On the night of the charged conduct, defendant met the victim at a school parking lot, brought a car and a condom, and they engaged in kissing that escalated to sexual intercourse.
The victim testified the decision was “mutual,” but also that defendant asked her to have sex, she was uncertain about sex, and she said yes.
During intercourse the victim asked him to stop because it hurt; defendant urged her to continue, saying it would stop hurting, and they finished.
The jury convicted defendant of accosting a minor for immoral purposes (MCL 750.145a); he was sentenced to two days in jail and 60 months’ probation. The conviction was affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency under intent theory (accost/entice/solicit with intent to induce sexual intercourse)	Prosecution: evidence of cultivating a secret relationship, arranging meeting with car and condom, asking her to have sex, and persuading her to continue despite pain shows intent to induce intercourse	Hess: sex was mutual; victim’s consent means he lacked intent to induce or force her to submit	Court: Evidence viewed favorably to prosecution sufficed to support specific intent to induce submission; conviction affirmed
Sufficiency under encouragement theory (encouraged a child to engage in proscribed act)	Prosecution: defendant encouraged sexual intercourse by allaying her misgivings, asking her to have sex, and urging continuation during pain	Hess: mutual decision and consent negate encouragement element	Court: Jury reasonably could find defendant encouraged the 13-year-old to engage in sexual intercourse; alternative theory also supported conviction
Effect of victim’s alleged consent	Prosecution: statutory design protects children unable to consent; token assent does not defeat criminality	Hess: argued victim’s willingness absolves him	Court: A 13-year-old legally cannot consent to sexual penetration; consent is not a defense to MCL 750.145a

People v Kowalski, 489 Mich. 488 (recognizing two alternative theories under MCL 750.145a)
People v Starks, 473 Mich. 227 (a minor cannot legally consent to sexual penetration)
People v Gaines, 306 Mich. App. 289 (accosting statutes protect children unable to consent)
People v Wolfe, 440 Mich. 508 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence; view evidence in prosecution's favor)
People v Kanaan, 278 Mich. App. 594 (minimal circumstantial evidence can establish intent)
J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (children are uniquely vulnerable to persuasion and outside pressures)