Criminal contempt for violating a domestic-relationship personal protection order (PPO); MCL 600.2950; Claim that the evidence was insufficient because only one biased witness testified & there was no physical evidence to support testimony showing that respondent entered onto petitioner’s property

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err by finding that respondent-ex-husband entered onto petitioner-ex-wife’s premises twice, and on one occasion attempted to remove the parties’ child from her home, the court affirmed the trial court’s order holding him in criminal contempt for violating a PPO. The trial court issued a PPO against respondent after he “engaged in conduct that included several assaults, batteries, and threats. Among a list of prohibitions, the PPO prohibited respondent from entering onto property where petitioner lived and removing a minor child from petitioner’s custody without a court order.” At a contested hearing, she testified that he violated the PPO on four different occasions. The gravamen of his “argument was that the evidence was insufficient because only one biased witness testified and there was no physical evidence to support her testimony showing that he entered onto her property.” She testified as to two separate instances when she saw him on her property. In the first instance, she testified that she saw him “leaving after her daughter was screaming that respondent tried to get her to come with him. Petitioner was able to see respondent’s face as he got in his car and drove away.” In the second instance, she testified that he entered onto her enclosed porch and knocked on her door. She saw his face as he was leaving, and called 911. In accordance with MCL 600.2950, the PPO prohibited him from entering onto her “property where she lived and from removing a minor child from petitioner’s legal custody.” The court held that petitioner’s “eyewitness testimony was sufficient to find beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent entered onto petitioner’s premises twice and attempted to remove their child on one of those occasions.” Although she was not able to admit any physical evidence, he could be convicted on her testimony alone. Further, his argument that she was a biased witness fell short. “The trial court addressed any issues of credibility in its ruling and had the opportunity to weigh petitioner’s testimony and credibility firsthand.”