Sufficient evidence to support a PPO; MCL 600.2950; MCL 750.411h; Admission of evidence

The court affirmed a PPO entered for the protection of petitioner, concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The parties were previously a couple. Because of the close proximity of their residences, “the trial court thought that a PPO for six months would afford petitioner protection through the summer months.” Although respondent argued that it “should have denied petitioner’s request for a PPO because respondent had not contacted petitioner for eight months, this Court has held that ‘MCL 600.2950 and MCL 750.411h dictate contemplation of all relevant present and past incidents arising between the parties.’” The court noted that petitioner “presented ‘evidence of two or more acts of unconsented contact that caused the victim to suffer emotional distress and that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress.’” In addition, it noted that “respondent previously assaulted, attacked, and wounded petitioner, which are acts listed in MCL 600.2950(1).” In this case, the “parties had not had contact for eight months at the time the petition for PPO was filed. However, the petitioner presented sufficient evidence of an assault, albeit not a sexual assault, that occurred eight months earlier to justify the trial court’s issuance of the PPO.” Respondent also argued that because the “City Attorney declined to charge [her] with any crime related to the alleged assaults, the trial court’s finding that the assault on [8/5/22], did in fact occur, was clearly erroneous.” This argument had no merit. The court held that “petitioner presented sufficient evidence in the form of testimony, photos, and videos for the trial court to find that he was assaulted by” respondent on 8/5/22. “This Court defers to the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it.” The court found that petitioner “was not required to present evidence that respondent was charged with assault. [He] only needed to present objective evidence to support his subjective, reasonable apprehension of future harm. [He] presented evidence that [she] had harmed him in the past, had harmed a friend months later, and that petitioner continued to see respondent and her family in Harbor Springs during the duration of the proceedings. It was not unreasonable for [him] to fear future harm by respondent when their paths continued to cross after” the end of their relationship. Thus, the court could not “conclude that the trial court’s decision to grant petitioner’s request for a PPO fell outside the range of principled outcomes.” Respondent also argued that it abused its discretion by failing to admit the results of her polygraph exam into evidence. The court found that because the PPO evidentiary hearing “is more akin to a trial on the merits rather than a post-conviction hearing, polygraph results are not admissible.” Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to admit the polygraph results.