Criminal contempt; Punishment for direct contempt; MCL 600.1711(1); People v Kurz; Remand before a different judge; In re Contempt of Scharg

Holding that defendant-attorney’s alleged contempt of court was direct, the court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded for a hearing before a different judge. The trial judge found defendant guilty of criminal contempt for referring to the judge as crazy. On appeal, the court agreed with defendant that the trial judge erred by presiding over the deferred contempt hearing because she was entitled to a hearing before a different judge. “This case deals with direct contempt because the conduct at issue occurred in the immediate view and presence of the trial court. The trial court opted to defer consideration of contempt regarding that conduct until a later date. Under these circumstances, ‘there [was] no need to sacrifice traditional procedural safeguards,’ and another judge was required to preside over the deferred contempt proceedings.”