Criminal contempt based on violation of a PPO; MCL 600.2950a(23); MCR 3.708(H)(3); “Stalking”; MCL 750.411h(1)(d)

Holding that there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent violated the terms of the nondomestic PPO at issue by stalking petitioner, the court affirmed his conviction of criminal contempt based on his violation of the PPO. He was sentenced to a year of probation with six days in jail. The PPO prohibited him “from partaking in stalking behavior such as ‘appearing within sight of the petitioner’ and ‘entering onto or remaining on property owned, leased, or occupied by the petitioner.’” The court noted that under MCL 750.711h(1)(d), stalking is defined as “a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.” Petitioner testified that after the PPO was issued, respondent continued to drive past her house daily. She also described an encounter in which she confronted him at the foot of her driveway, and she testified that he tried “to enter the pole barn on her property. Petitioner testified that respondent’s behavior caused her to be afraid to be in her house.” The court concluded that the trial court did not clearly err in its ruling.