[505]*505Archer, J.
There are two issues in this case. First, did the Court of Appeals err in considering the insufficiency of the evidence, when the issue was not raised in a motion for a new trial? Second, did the Court of Appeals err by finding there was insufficient evidence of force and coercion, an element of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct?
We hold that where a claim of insufficient evidence to support a verdict is not raised before the trial judge, the claim may be raised on appeal without the necessity of filing a motion for a new trial. Arnsteen v U S Equipment Co, 390 Mich 776 (1973).
We agree with the Court of Appeals that there was insufficient evidence of the element of force and coercion as required under the fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct statute, MCL 750.520e(1)(a); MSA 28.788(5)(1)(a), and we modify the decision of the Court of Appeals.
i
The complainant is a seventeen-year-old high school student. She testified at trial that on July 9, 1983, she was home alone, since her mother was working the night shift. She went to bed around midnight and fell asleep shortly thereafter. She was awakened by the feel of a hand on her genital area, outside her underwear. She said she knew someone was in the room and woke up. She called out, "Who is it?” No one answered. She reached up and felt a face with scratchy hair and stubble on it. She then rolled over and turned on her light. In moving to turn on the light, she turned her whole body, and the hand was removed from her genital area.
She turned on her light and stared at the man squatting beside her bed. She said, "Who the hell [506]*506are you?” She said she was angry and a little scared. The man said, "Don’t you remember me?” She replied, "No.” She then told him to get out of her house. The man staggered and just stood there. The complainant said she repeated again, "Get out of my house.” She reached for the phone. The man turned around and walked out of the room. She then called the police.
The complainant was shown photos to identify the person who was in her house. The second time she viewed the pictures, she identified the defendant. She also recalled having seen the man before because he had dated her mother.
The defendant, Robert Eddie Patterson, was charged with fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct.1 He was charged and tried under subsection (l)(a) of the statute which provides that a person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree if force or coercion is used to accomplish the sexual contact.
The fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct statute, MCL 750.520e; MSA 28.788(5), provided at the time:
Sec. 520e. (1) A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree if he or she engages in sexual contact[2] with another person and if either of the following circumstances exists:
[507]*507(a) Force or coercion is used to accomplish the sexual contact. Force or coercion includes but is not limited to any of the circumstances listed in section 520b(l)(f)(i) to (iv).
(b) The actor knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally defective,[3] mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless.
(2) Criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or by a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.[4]
The circumstances that subsection (l)(a) refers to are listed in the first-degree criminal sexual conduct statute, MCL 750.520b(1)(f)(i)-(iv); MSA 28.788(2)(1)(f)(i)-(iv). The circumstances are:
(i) When the actor overcomes the victim through the actual application of physical force or physical violence.
(ii) When the actor coerces the victim to submit by threatening to use force or violence on the victim, and the victim believes that the actor has the present ability to execute these threats.
(iii) When the actor coerces the victim to submit by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim, or any other person, and the victim believes that the actor has the ability to execute this threat. As used in this subdivision, "to retaliate” includes threats of physical punishment, kidnapping, or extortion.
(iv) When the actor engages in the medical treatment or examination of the victim in a manner or for purposes which are medically recognized as unethical or unacceptable._
[508]*508Defendant Patterson testified and admitted he knew the complainant and her mother, but denied involvement in the incident. He testified that on July 9, he went to a party and then to a girlfriend’s home.
At the close of all the proofs, defense counsel moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the prosecutor failed to present sufficient evidence to warrant sending the case to the jury. The court denied the motion, stating in pertinent part:
[The complainant] testified that the defendant touched her genital area, the clothing covering this area. . . .
This jury could find from what this young woman testified, that this touching could be reasonably construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or sexual gratification. This occurred at two-thirty in the morning. This young woman was sound asleep in her bed.
I am satisfied because of that that this jury could find that this touching could be reasonably construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or sexual gratification.
And, lastly, this jury could find that the defendant used force or coercion to commit the sexual act because that requires the use of actual physical force by the defendant or any action sufficient to create a reasonable fear of dangerous consequences.
This young woman was frightened. Not only was she frightened, she was angered. We heard what she said. She told this man to get out, as I remember. Again, it was at two-thirty in the morning. There were no lights on in this bedroom. This man placed his hand upon the clothing covering her genital area.
I am satisfied that, also, it appears that the doors were closed to this house. I’m satisfied that there was force used by — I’m satisfied this jury could find that force was used by this defendant.
With that in mind, your motion is denied.
[509]*509I should add that I considered this age of this young woman being 17, also, her size in comparison with the size of the defendant in ruling on your motion.
In instructing the jury, the trial judge gave the standard criminal jury instructions.5 Regarding the element of force or coercion the court stated:
The term "force or coercion” means the use of actual physical force by the defendant, or any action sufficient to create a reasonable fear of dangerous consequences.[6]
A jury convicted the defendant of criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree, MCL 750.520e(l)(a); MSA 28.788(5)(l)(a). Following his conviction of that crime, defendant was sentenced on February 16, 1984, to nine months in the county jail and four years probation.7
The defendant appealed by right. In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the defendant’s conviction, holding that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction of the offense charged in the information. The Court of Appeals declined to remand the case for another trial.
The prosecutor sought leave to appeal, and we granted leave on April 22, 1986.
n
On appeal, the prosecutor argues that the defen[510]*510dant’s conviction of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct should be reinstated because the element of "force or coercion” may be predicated on a finding that the defendant’s actions created a reasonable fear of dangerous circumstances.8 The prosecutor maintains that the Court of Appeals improperly restricted its legal analysis of the statute since subsection (l)(a) expressly states that the enumerated circumstances defining "force or coercion” are not exclusive.
The defendant argues that since the sexual contact in this case was accomplished when the complainant was asleep, the Court of Appeals correctly found that the prosecutor had not sustained his burden of proving that sexual contact had been accomplished by force or coercion.9
[511]*511We must examine the statute and its legislative history to determine the Legislature’s intent in providing that "[f]orce or coercion includes but is not limited to any of the circumstances listed in section 520b(1)(f)(i) to (iv).”
Senate Bill 1207 was introduced on February 28, 197410 to redefine sexual crimes. As introduced, the provision on fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct provided in relevant part:
Sec. 520i. (1) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the fourth degree who subjects another person to sexual contact under any of the circumstances listed in Section 520c(l)(A) to 520c(l)(J).
Under the initial Senate bill, a person was guilty of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct if there was sexual contact under any of the circumstances enumerated in § 520c of the bill, which was the first-degree criminal sexual conduct provision.11 One of the circumstances contained in § 520c was 520c(l)(J) which provided:_
[512]*512When the actor, through concealment or by the element of surprise, is able to overcome the victim before he or she has a chance to adequately flee or resist.
The Senate Judiciary Committee reviewed the bill and reported it back to the Senate with amendments, recommending that the bill be passed.12
[513]*513The bill and the amendments were referred to the Committee of the Whole. After additional amendments, the bill was passed and sent to the House of Representatives.13
The House substituted its own version of the bill.14 After amendments, the House transmitted the bill back to the Senate. For the first time, the proposed fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct statute stated that a person was guilty of the offense if "[f]orce or coercion is used to accomplish the sexual contact.” (Emphasis supplied.) The House version of the bill deleted six of the circumstances in the initial Senate version under which sexual contact would be a crime.
[514]*514Even after amendments, the House substitute bill provided that a person was guilty of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct if under § 520b(l)(G):
The actor causes personal injury to the victim and the actor knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally defective, mentally incapacitated or physically helpless.[15]
Deleted from the fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct statute was § 520b(l)(F)(v) which provided that a person could be found guilty under the statute if there was sexual contact and
(v) [w]hen the actor, through concealment or by the element of surprise, is able to overcome the victim.
The fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct statute was part of 1974 PA 266 and was approved by the Governor on August 12, 1974.16
hi
The first issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred by considering the insufficiency of the evidence since the issue was not raised at trial or raised in a motion for new trial. We find no error.
A claim that there is insufficient evidence to support a verdict or decision is not addressed to the discretion of the trial judge and may be raised on appeal without a motion for a new trial. [Arnsteen v U S Equipment Co, supra, p 777.]
Thus this issue may be distinguished from one [515]*515where a losing party claims that a verdict of a jury or a decision of a judge is against the great weight of the evidence. "Such a motion is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge and, accordingly, if such a motion is not filed, such a claim is not preserved for appellate review.” Arnsteen, supra.
In order to be convicted of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct as charged in the information (see n 8), the actor17 must have intentionally touched the complainant’s genital area, or the clothing covering that area; second, the touching must have been done with the intent and for the purpose of sexual arousal or sexual gratification; and, third, force or coercion must have been used to accomplish the sexual contact.
The prosecutor argues that the Court of Appeals interpretation of the fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct statute completely ignored the defendant’s sexual imposition and assaultive conduct and erroneously focused on the complainant’s physical status. In addition, the defendant was absolved of his criminal assaultive behavior, and the result failed to fulfill the statute’s policy goals.
Defendant argues that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because the judge ignored the crucial fact that the contact was not accomplished by frightening the complainant, but rather that the contact woke her up, she moved, the contact ended, and she was frightened and angry that the defendant was in her room. There was no physical force or threats of physical force to make the complainant submit, the defendant maintains. Also, defendant states there were no threats to retaliate, nor were the defendant’s [516]*516actions such that they put the complainant in fear of the consequences.
The Court of Appeals stated:
None of the circumstances listed in MCL 750.520b(1)(f)(i)-(iv); MSA 28.788(2)(1)(f)(i)-(iv) [was] present here. Even when those circumstances are not present, force or coercion may be found where the defendant’s actions were sufficient to create a reasonable fear of dangerous consequences. People v McGill, 131 Mich App 465, 472; 346 NW2d 572 (1984). The victim here undoubtably had a reasonable fear of dangerous consequences when she awoke to find a strange man in her bedroom. The sexual contact, however, was already accomplished by the time the victim awakened. Nothing which occurred after the victim awakened can be said to have been "used to accomplish the sexual contact.” Nothing which occurred before the victim awakened can be characterized as "force or coercion.”
The Legislature’s exclusion from the applicable definition of "force or coercion” of circumstances in which "the actor, through concealment or by the element of surprise, is able to overcome the victim” demonstrates an intent not to punish conduct like that of defendant here under this definition of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. The evidence here would sustain defendant’s conviction under an alternate definition of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. MCL 750.520e(1)(b); MSA 28.788(5)(1)(b) provides:
"A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree if he or she engages in sexual contact with another person and if either of the following circumstances exists:
"(b) The actor knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally incapable, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless.” [Emphasis added.]
MCL 750.520a(i); MSA 28.788(l)(i) contains the following definition:
[517]*517" 'Physically helpless’ means that a person is unconscious, asleep, or for any other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to [an] act.”
The prosecutor, however, failed to charge defendant with a violation of MCL 750.520e(1)(b); MSA 28.788(5)(1)(b) or to pursue such a theory at trial, although he could have pursued both such a theory and his "force or coercion” theory in the alternative.
The prosecutor argues that this Court should adopt the interpretation of force or coercion set forth in People v McGill, supra. In McGill, the defendant was convicted by a jury of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. The complainant was a thirteen-year-old ninth grader who previously baby-sat for the defendant’s children. The defendant and his girlfriend picked up the complainant to baby-sit, but then drove the complainant to Sterling State Park, forty to forty-five minutes from the complainant’s house. After the defendant’s girlfriend left the car, the defendant began talking to the complainant about modeling, indicating he was an agent of some sort. He promised the complainant a house, trips, and a modeling career. The defendant then touched the complainant on her leg, back, breast, and inside her underpants. The complainant continually requested and ordered the defendant to remove his hands from her. The complainant testified that after the touchings, she still thought defendant was an agent of some type, but that she was frightened. She knew no one who lived in the Sterling State Park area.
The defendant’s girlfriend eventually returned to the car after about one-half hour. Defendant then drove the complainant home where he paid her three dollars and allowed her to go into her [518]*518house. The defendant testified at trial that he never touched the complainant.
On appeal, the defendant argued that no evidence was presented at trial to show that defendant used force or coercion to effectuate the sexual contact. Since force or coercion is an element of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, defendant argued that his conviction must be reversed.
Little case law exists in Michigan defining the terms "force” or "coercion” in the context presented, the McGill Court noted. After discussing and distinguishing the only case cited by the defendant, Moran v People, 25 Mich 356 (1872), the Court in McGill, p 473, stated:
[T]he statute in question in the instant case does not require that there be actual force — it may also be satisfied by a finding of coercion or, according to the Criminal Jury Instructions and as intimated in Moran, even a finding of a reasonable fear of dangerous consequences.
The Court noted that the complainant was only thirteen years old. Defendant was an older and presumably stronger man. Defendant took the complainant to a state park far from her home. Complainant knew no one who lived nearby and testified that she was frightened. "Given the totality of these circumstances, it could certainly be inferred that a coercive atmosphere existed and that defendant knew, or should have known, that his actions were coercive to a child,” the Court stated. Id., p 474.
The McGill Court affirmed the conviction:
We conclude that, on the facts of this case, defendant’s actions were "sufficient to create a reasonable fear of dangerous consequences,” CJI 20:5:03, and, in light of the totality of the circum[519]*519stances, were such that they could have been found by the jury to constitute coercion. [Id., p 472.]
However, the Court in McGill added:
We do not hold here that the type of actual conduct described in the instant case will always satisfy the "force or coercion” element. Were the victim older or had the undesired touching occurred in a place from which the victim could easily leave or from which she could summon help, a fear of dangerous consequences might not be deemed reasonable and an atmosphere of coercion might not exist. Each case must be examined on its own facts to determine whether force or coercion is indeed present. [Id., pp 474-475.]
The defendant argues that the actions in this case are distinguishable from those in McGill. In this case, there was no physical overpowering, the complainant was asleep and therefore unaware of the actions which enabled the defendant to touch her, and there was no submission.
The prosecutor maintains that in other jurisdictions, the trend is to make the definition of force or coercion more comprehensive. Minnesota is the only state which has passed a criminal sexual conduct statute similar to Michigan’s, and three Minnesota cases have interpreted the concept of force under that statute. The prosecutor urges this Court to adopt the rationale of these cases.
In In re Welfare of DLK, 381 NW2d 435 (Minn, 1986), the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Court of Appeals, 362 NW2d 13 (Minn App, 1985). In that case, D.L.K., a fourteen-year-old juvenile, came up behind a female classmate at school, tapped her on the shoulder, and when she turned around, grabbed and pinched her [520]*520breast hard enough to cause pain. The trial court held this conduct constituted fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn Stat Ann, § 609.345(c) and by reason of this violation adjudicated D.L.K. a delinquent.
Minn Stat Ann, § 609.345 defines criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree as follows:
A person who engages in sexual contact with another person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree if any of the following circumstances exists: . . . (c) the actor uses force or coercion to accomplish the sexual contact .... [Emphasis supplied.]
Force is defined in § 609.341, subd 3:
"Force” means the infliction, attempted infliction, or threatened infliction by the actor of bodily harm or commission or threat of any other crime by the actor against the complainant or another, which (a) causes the complainant to reasonably believe that the actor has the present ability to execute the threat and (b) if the actor does not have a significant relationship to the complainant, also causes the complainant to submit.
After reviewing its legislative history, the Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that its legislature intended to retain the concepts of assault and duress in the definition of force, despite amendments in the definition. The court stated:
We hold the evidence in this case of D.L.K.’s sudden and painful grabbing and pinching of the victim’s breast is sufficient use of force to accomplish sexual contact to sustain the trial court’s conclusion that D.L.K.’s conduct constitutes criminal conduct in the fourth degree .... [Id., p 438.]
Defendant argues that the Minnesota court fo[521]*521cused on the infliction of pain in finding sufficient evidence of force. To the contrary, in this case, the defendant argues there was no infliction of pain or a threat to inflict pain. Even under Minnesota’s interpretation, the defendant maintains that his conduct would not have constituted the requisite force or coercion. There is also no policy determination to be made in this case, since the conduct at issue is already clearly included in subsection (l)(b) of the fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct statute.
The defendant urges this Court to adopt the approach used in People v Kusumoto, 169 Cal App 3d 487; 215 Cal Rptr 347 (1985). In that case, a thirteen-year-old was sleeping on the couch one afternoon, and she awoke to find the defendant Kusumoto’s hand in her shorts and his finger in her vagina. She reviled him and went into her room. A couple of weeks later the complainant was sleeping on the couch late at night, and she again awoke to find the defendant’s hand in her shorts and his finger in her vagina. She went to her room and closed the door. The defendant was convicted under several different counts, but appealed two convictions of rape by object under California Penal Code, § 289(a). He argued that the charges against him should have been dismissed because there was insufficient evidence of "force.” Although the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that he took advantage of the complainant’s being asleep, the defendant argued that because he did not physically subdue the complainant, the insertion of his finger into her vagina was not "by means of force” as required by statute.
The California Penal Code, § 289(a) provided:
Every person who causes the penetration, however slight, of the genital or anal openings of [522]*522another person for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse by any foreign object, substance, instrument, or device when the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person or where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person, and there is a reasonable possibility that the perpetrator will execute the threat, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years. [Emphasis added.]
The rape-by-object statute in California had no provision applying specifically to a sleeping victim. Subdivision (b) of § 289 defined a form of object rape where the victim was unable to consent:
Every person who causes the penetration, however slight, of the genital or anal openings of another person for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse by any foreign object, substance, instrument, or device and the victim is at the time incapable, through lunacy or other unsoundness of mind, whether temporary or permanent, of giving legal consent, and this is known or reasonably should be known to the person committing the act for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail for a period of not more than one year.
After reviewing the sexual assault statutes and the legislative history, the court in Kusumoto stated:
We are thus faced with a situation in which, as to the three general sexual assault crimes other than rape-by-object, the Legislature has enacted a specific subdivision to deal with the performance of prohibited acts on a sleeping or otherwise un[523]*523conscious victim. As to those statutes, we can conclude that the Legislature did not intend the performance of acts on a sleeping victim to be found to be by means of force as that term appears in other subdivisions of those same statutes. [Id., p 492.]
The Kusumoto court observed:
Were we interpreting a common law crime in the present case, we would have no trouble concluding that the essential element of rape and other sexual assaults is the lack of consent and that the concept of force "plays merely a supporting evidentiary role.” We deal here, however, with a statute passed by the Legislature which requires that the act be accomplished "against the victim’s will by means of force . . . .” An interpretation of the statute which would require "force” only as evidentiary proof of the lack of consent would effectively render the "by means of force” clause superfluous. As one commentator explained in the context of analyzing rape statutes in general: "The act of sexual intercourse must be accomplished . . . without [the victim’s] consent. . . .
"Conceptually, 'lack of consent’ results either from the defendant’s use of force or threatened force, or from the female’s incapacity to consent. . . .
"If the defendant uses force or threatened force to accomplish the act of sexual intercourse, there is no consent. The force to which reference is made is not the force inherent in the act of penetration but the force used or threatened to overcome or prevent resistance by the female.” 3 Wharton, Criminal Law (14th ed. 1980) §§ 287-288, pp 30-34, fns omitted. [Id., p 493.]
The court concluded:
In the final analysis we have no question here [524]*524that the defendant perpetrated an act to which the victim did not consent. But given the entire statutory scheme, the requirement of "force” in section 289(a) simply cannot be stretched to encompass the type of conduct involved in this case, where the victim was penetrated while asleep and where the victim’s will was not overcome by any physical force substantially different from or greater than that necessary to accomplish the act itself. [Id., p 494.]
Thus the court reversed Kusumoto’s conviction, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that the defendant committed the offense of object rape "by means of force” as the crime is defined in § 289(a). Id., p 494.
Defendant Patterson argues that this case is far easier than Kusumoto because our Legislature has clearly addressed the problem of the sleeping victim in the fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct statute.
IV
We must now review the question whether there was sufficient evidence of "force or coercion” in this case to support the defendant’s fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct conviction.
The standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence questions was set forth in People v Hampton, 407 Mich 354; 285 NW2d 284 (1979), reh den 407 Mich 1164 (1980), cert den 449 US 885 (1980):
In summary, the trial judge when ruling on a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal must consider the evidence presented by the prosecution up to the time the motion is made [People v Garcia, 398 Mich 250; 247 NW2d 547 (1976)], view that evidence in a light most favorable to the [525]*525prosecution, People v Vail, 393 Mich 460, 463; 227 NW2d 535 (1975), and determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, Jackson [v Virginia, 443 US 307, 319; 99 S Ct 2781; 61 L Ed 2d 560 (1979)]. [Hampton, supra, p 368.]
In addition, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a defendant in a criminal case against conviction "except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.”18
After reviewing the evidence in the light of the Hampton standard, we agree with the Court of Appeals that there was insufficient evidence of the element of force and coercion as required under the fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct statute, MCL 750.520e(1)(a); MSA 28.788(5)(1)(a). We recognize that some may view this as an illogical result, and we share Justice Boyle’s misgivings. The legislative intent underlying subsection (1)(a) of the fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct statute is obscure, however. The Legislature specifically required force or coercion to convict a defendant of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct where the defendant is charged as this defendant was charged in the information. If the Legislature had wanted to make all unconsented-to sexual contact punishable, with or without force, it should have said so. It may yet do so.
Upon reviewing the legislative history of the fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct statute, we are convinced that the Legislature did not intend the defendant’s conduct to come within the definition of force or coercion in subsection (l)(a) of the [526]*526fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct statute. While it is true, as the prosecutor argues, that the Legislature’s definition of "force or coercion” is not exclusive, we decline to expand the definition of force or coercion to include the defendant’s conduct in this case. The "included but not limited to” language with direct reference to § 520b(l)(f)(i)-(iv) are all examples where the victim would be awake.
We intimate no opinion regarding the correctness of the analysis or decision in McGill, supra, but this case is distinguishable from McGill. The defendant told the complainant that she would be baby-sitting, but instead the defendant drove the complainant to a state park forty to forty-five minutes away. The complainant knew no one in that area. The defendant then repeatedly and intimately touched the complainant, despite her continued requests and orders telling the defendant to remove his hands from her. In this case, the defendant had accomplished the unconsentedto touching before the complainant woke up. The complainant reached over to turn on the light and the hand left her body.
The Legislature specifically provided under subsection (l)(b) that sexual contact with a person who is physically helpless, i.e., asleep, is a crime.19 When the House substituted its own bill for the criminal sexual conduct act, it added to the fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct section the requirement that "[f]orce or coercion [be] used to accomplish the sexual contact.” In addition, the House defined force or coercion more narrowly than did the Senate in the originally proposed Senate Bill 1207. Therefore, the Legislature intended to treat sexual assaults accomplished by force or coercion [527]*527separately from assaults on physically or mentally incapacitated victims.
Our holding is supported by the rules of statutory construction. Criminal statutes must be strictly construed. Bell v United States, 349 US 81; 75 S Ct 620; 99 L Ed 905 (1955); People v Johnson, 406 Mich 320; 279 NW2d 534 (1979). If this Court were to interpret defendant’s conduct in this case to be included within the provisions of subsection (1)(a) of the fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct statute, this would render the language of subsection (1)(b) of the statute a nullity. "However inclusive may be the general language of the statute, it will not be held to apply or prevail over matters specifically dealt with in another part of the same enactment.” In re Brown, 329 F Supp 422, 425 (SD Iowa, 1971).
Nor can defendant’s conduct come within the fifth definition of force or coercion.
When the actor, through concealment or by the element of surprise, is able to overcome the victim![20]
Although this definition exists in criminal sexual conduct of the first, second, and third degrees, this definition was specifically eliminated from fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct.
"To discover the true construction of any particular clause of a statute, the first thing to be attended to, no doubt, is the actual language of the clause itself, as introduced by the preamble; second, the words or expressions which obviously are by design omitted; third, the connection of the clause with other clauses in the same statute, and the conclusions which on comparison with other [528]*528clauses, may reasonably and obviously be drawn.”[21]
Therefore, since the prosecution failed to prove the element of force or coercion as required under the fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct statute, we agree with the Court of Appeals that there was insufficient evidence of the element of force and coercion as required under MCL 750.520e(1)(a); MSA 28.788(5)(1)(a).
v
The Court of Appeals reversed the defendant’s conviction. We believe instead that the proper remedy is to reduce this conviction to the lesser offense of simple battery. MCL 750.81; MSA 28.276. Accordingly, we remand this case to the circuit court for entry of such a judgment and for resentencing.
Levin, Brickley, and Cavanagh, JJ., concurred with Archer, J.