Finding of criminal contempt of court for violation of a non-domestic PPO; Ineffective assistance of counsel during the show-cause hearing; Jurisdiction to conduct a contempt hearing; MCL 764.15b; MCR 3.708; Need for a different judge for a new show-cause hearing; People v Hill; People v Stevens

Because the court concluded that respondent-LT was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel during the show-cause hearing, it reversed and remanded for a new hearing. It also ordered that “the hearing be conducted before a different judge, who is instructed to follow the unambiguous procedure set forth in MCL 764.15b and MCR 3.708.” The trial court found respondent guilty of criminal contempt of court on the basis of a violation of a non-domestic PPO involving neighbors. The court held that “he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to move for a directed verdict after” petitioner-DEC failed to offer sufficient evidence of respondent’s guilt. It further held “counsel’s error prejudiced respondent because there is a reasonable probability that, but for the error, respondent would have been acquitted.” As to the trial court’s jurisdiction to conduct a contempt hearing, the court concluded that “the trial court had no power to try LT for criminal contempt when neither the prosecuting attorney nor counsel for DEC appeared on the day set for trial. At that point, the trial court should have dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction. LT’s conviction and sentence must be vacated on this ground. Another contempt hearing can occur only if a prosecutor undertakes the responsibility of prosecuting LT, or DEC retains counsel as set forth under MCL 764.15b and MCR 3.708.” The court additionally found that the judge’s ‘“participation as an accuser, investigator, fact-finder, or initial decision maker’ solidifies this Court’s conviction that a new judge is required if the case is retried.”