Criminal contempt resulting from violations of a PPO; MCL 600.2950(23); MCR 3.708(B)(1) & (H)(3); In re LT; Stalking; MCL 750.411h & i; Sufficiency of the evidence; Right to present a defense; Denial of an adjournment; MCR 2.503; Good cause; People v Daniels; Unavailability of a witness or evidence; MCR 2.503(C)(1)

The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support respondent’s criminal contempt convictions. It also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his adjournment request, and he was not deprived of his right to present a defense. The trial court found respondent in criminal contempt for twice violating the PPO against him, and sentenced him to 93 days in jail for each violation, to run concurrently. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. Petitioner testified that he “contacted her many times, loitered outside of her home, attempted to enter her home, attempted to run her car off of the road, impeded her attempt to enter a family member’s car, touched her buttocks, spit in her face, and repeatedly punched her in the face, causing her to lose consciousness and seek medical treatment.” Her testimony “was corroborated, in part, by her mother’s testimony and photographs depicting her alleged injuries.” There was “an abundance of evidence that respondent violated the PPO at least twice.” It also rejected his claim that he was deprived of his right to present a defense because the trial court denied his adjournment request, thereby preventing him from presenting alibi evidence and testifying on his own behalf. It found that he failed to establish good cause warranting an adjournment, and that even if he “had done so, he failed to demonstrate prejudice stemming from the trial court’s denial of his adjournment request.” The circumstances indicated that he “failed to make a diligent effort to identify and present alibi evidence.” In addition, it was unclear whether any of the evidence respondent referenced “actually existed. Without more, there [was] no reason to believe [he] was prejudiced by the denial of his adjournment request.” Affirmed.