“MCL 750.158 encompasses two categories of crimes: ‘abominable and detestable crime[s] against nature’ with a human being, and ‘abominable and detestable crime[s] against nature’ with an animal.” People v Haynes, 281 Mich App 27, 30 (2008) (alterations in original).
“Any person who shall commit the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal shall be guilty of a felony[.]” MCL 750.158. “A ‘crime against nature’ at common law encompassed both sodomy and bestiality.” People v Haynes, 281 Mich App 27, 30 (2008), quoting People v Carrier, 74 Mich App 161, 165 (1977).
“In any prosecution for sodomy, it shall not be necessary to prove emission, and any sexual penetration, however slight, shall be deemed sufficient to complete the crime specified in [MCL 750.158].” MCL 750.159. See also Carrier, 74 Mich App at 167 (“Bestiality is encompassed within the meaning of a ‘crime against nature’ and ‘sodomy.’”).
“Michigan follows the common-law definition of sodomy, which covered only copulation per anum, not fellatio.” People v Haynes, 281 Mich App 27, 30 (2008) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
“[A]cts of bestiality are expressly prohibited by MCL 750.158.” People v Carrier, 74 Mich App 161, 166 (1977). “An act of bestiality is not limited to copulation per anum, but includes an act of sexual connection between a human being and an animal.” Id.
MCL 750.158 is a general intent crime. See People v Askar, 8 Mich App 95, 100-101 (1967) (“the question of motive, intent, mistake, or accident or the existence of a scheme or plan is not . . . material in a prosecution for sodomy”).
M Crim JI 20.32, Sodomy.
A conviction under MCL 750.158 is “punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 15 years, or if such person was at the time of the said offense a sexually delinquent person, may be punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for an indeterminate term, the minimum of which shall be 1 day and the maximum of which shall be life.” MCL 750.158.
No fines are authorized under MCL 750.158.
A defendant convicted of committing a crime against nature must pay a crime victim assessment of $130. See MCL 780.905(1)(a).
3.Minimum State Cost and Other Costs
If the court orders payment of any combination of a fine, costs, or applicable assessments, the court must impose the minimum state cost of not less than $68. See MCL 769.1j(1)(a); MCL 769.1k(1)(a).
MCL 750.158 is a tier II offense under the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA) when the offense is “committed against a minor unless either of the following applies:
(A) All of the following:
(I) The victim consented to the conduct constituting the violation.
(II) The victim was at least 13 years of age but less than 16 years of age at the time of the violation.
(III) The individual is not more than 4 years older than the victim.
(B) All of the following:
(I) The victim consented to the conduct constituting the violation.
(II) The victim was 16 or 17 years of age at the time of the violation.
(III) The victim was not under the custodial authority of the individual at the time of the violation.” MCL 28.722(t)(v).
If the defendant meets the domicile, residence, employment, or student status, registration is required. See MCL 28.723. “[A] violation of MCL 750.158 requires registration under the SORA for a listed offense only if the victim of the offense is a human being less than 18 years old.” People v Hayes, 281 Mich App 27, 32 (2008). “SORA does not apply to the portion of MCL 750.158 that prohibits bestiality.” Hayes, 281 Mich App at 28.
For more information on the SORA’s registration requirements, see Chapter 9.
1.Not Unconstitutionally Vague
MCL 750.158 is not unconstitutionally vague on grounds that “the average person does not understand what is meant by ‘the abominable and detestable crime against nature[.]’” People v Coulter, 94 Mich App 531, 535-536 (1980).
2.No Gender-Based Discrimination
MCL 750.158 does not create a gender-based discrimination when “the separate classification [between male homosexual intercourse and female homosexual intercourse] is only inferred and only arises from the natural physical differences between men and women.”People v Coulter, 94 Mich App 531, 536-537 (1980).