Sufficient evidence for convictions of criminal contempt for violating a domestic-relationship personal protection order (PPO); MCL 600.2950; Due process; In re Contempt of Henry; First Amendment right to free speech; “True threats”; Whether the trial court had to conduct an analysis under MCL 750.411s; Our Family Wizard (OFW) (a messaging service)

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support respondent’s criminal contempt convictions for violating a PPO, and that he was not deprived of due process. It rejected his First Amendment argument, concluding that his “Facebook post was not constitutionally-protected speech.” Finally, the trial court did not err in failing to address MCL 750.411s, as it did not apply here. Thus, the court affirmed respondent’s convictions. He and petitioner were previously married and share joint legal custody of their child. The trial court found him “guilty of three counts of criminal contempt for violating the PPO by (1) sending an OFW message to petitioner stating, in part: ‘You disrespect me, you reap what you sew [sic];’ (2) sending an OFW message to petitioner stating, in part: ‘You keep on playing this division game, and we can take other measures to get your common sense in order;’ and (3) by publishing a public Facebook post stating: ‘From me and other great Black Fathers, to miserable f***s posing as Black mothers/Grandmothers using kids as weapons against us—The best Fathers’ Day present to us and that child . . . is for you to die. Asap.’” The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for “a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent violated the PPO by threatening to kill or physically injure petitioner in each of the three instances cited by the trial court.” As to respondent’s due process claim, he failed to show “any error with the manner in which the show-cause hearing was conducted.” In addition, the court was not persuaded “the trial court’s comments during the parenting-time hearing reflected any bias or a ‘predetermined outcome.’” As to his First Amendment argument, the PPO prohibited him “from threatening to kill or physically injure” petitioner. The court noted that a “state may restrict and regulate ‘true threats’ to protect people from the possibility of violence and to protect individuals from the fear of violence. . . . Respondent publicly threatened death to ‘Black mothers/Grandmothers using kids as weapons against us,’ which would include petitioner as the mother of” his only child. The evidence showed that he “was aware of the audience of his Facebook post and knew that petitioner might feel threatened. This is not the type of speech that our Constitution protects.”