Opinion
365634
06-20-2024
In re SM. v. SM, Respondent-Appellant. MB, Petitioner-Appellee,
UNPUBLISHED
Allegan Circuit Court LC No. 2022-065670-PP
Before: Michelle M. Rick, Kathleen Jansen, Anica Letica, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right a trial court order finding him in criminal contempt for violation of a personal protection order (PPO). Respondent was sentenced to 10 days in jail, followed by six months of probation. On appeal, respondent argues that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he violated the terms of the PPO. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The parties in this case were previously in a romantic relationship and have a daughter in common. Respondent has had a history of threatening to kill petitioner, showing weaponry to their daughter, and making accusations to law enforcement that petitioner's husband has been assaulting petitioner as well as their daughter. Petitioner sought an ex parte PPO as a result of respondent's behavior, which the trial court issued in May 2022. The PPO prohibited him from contacting petitioner through a third party, as well as from threatening to kill or physically injure petitioner, among other things.
In September 2022, petitioner received a phone call from a relative-MT-who then handed the phone to respondent, in violation of the terms of the PPO. Respondent then told petitioner over the phone that he wanted to see their daughter. When petitioner declined, respondent said, "[Y]ou got that n***a over there, he raping and touching my baby and I'm gonna [sic] kill you and I'm gonna [sic] kill him. And-and you better watch yo self." Petitioner hung up the phone, texted MT-essentially memorializing what happened-and called MT back. Petitioner learned that MT and respondent were together in respondent's barbershop. Petitioner contacted the police that same day and reported the incident.
Petitioner testified at a hearing on the matter, and her phone call log and text message to MT were introduced as evidence. Respondent testified that he did not call petitioner and that he was otherwise complying with the PPO. Respondent initially denied knowing MT, but then admitted to knowing who MT was. The trial court found that the evidence demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent violated the terms of the PPO by using a third-party individual to call petitioner, during which respondent directly threatened to kill petitioner. The trial court found that petitioner's "credibility is strong," while respondent's "credibility is certainly tainted by his inconsistent testimony ...." Respondent was sentenced as earlier described. This appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
Respondent argues that there was insufficient evidence to hold respondent in criminal contempt for violating the terms of the PPO. We disagree.
"[T]his Court reviews for an abuse of discretion a trial court's decision to hold a party in contempt. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is outside the range of principled outcomes." ARM v KJL, 342 Mich.App. 283, 293; 995 N.W.2d 361 (2022) (quotation marks and citations omitted). The court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error. Id. "The clear-error standard requires us to give deference to the lower court and find clear error only if we are nevertheless left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." CAJ v KDT, 339 Mich.App. 459, 464; 984 N.W.2d 504 (2021) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
"When examining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal-contempt finding following a bench trial, this Court views the evidence presented in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine if the elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt." ARM, 342 Mich.App. at 295 (quotation marks and citation omitted). "Circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences arising from that evidence can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements." In re JCB, 336 Mich.App. 736, 748; 971 N.W.2d 705 (2021). This Court does "not reweigh the evidence or reassess witness credibility." ARM, 342 Mich.App. at 295. "The credibility of witnesses is a matter of weight, not sufficiency." People v Baskerville, 333 Mich.App. 276, 283; 963 N.W.2d 620 (2020) (quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted).
In the trial court, respondent testified that he did not violate the terms of the PPO and did not call petitioner. On appeal, respondent instead argues that a one-minute phone call is insufficient to support finding a PPO violation and that MT should have been called to testify. He argues that the evidence presented was insufficient evidence to support holding him in criminal contempt. Respondent essentially asserts that the trial court's finding rested on a credibility determination between him and petitioner.
Petitioner's testimony was that respondent used a third party to threaten to kill her. This testimony was corroborated by her phone call log and text message to MT. Conversely, respondent testified that he did not call petitioner and was otherwise complying with the PPO, which explicitly prohibited him from contacting petitioner through a third party or threatening to kill or physically injure her. The trial court nonetheless found that there was a sufficient factual basis to conclude that respondent violated the terms of the PPO by contacting and threatening petitioner. The trial court found respondent's testimony lacked credibility. We do not reassess witness-credibility determinations on appeal. ARM, 342 Mich.App. at 295. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, sufficient evidence was presented to support a finding that respondent violated the PPO.
Affirmed.