Criminal contempt; MCL 600.1701; MCL 600.1711; “Immediate view & presence” requirement; Effect of the fact the hearing was conducted over Zoom; Due process; In re Scott; People v Mysliwiec; Plain error review; Sufficiency of the evidence; People v MacLean; DeGeorge v Warheit

[This opinion was previously released as an unpublished opinion on 9/30/25.] Rejecting appellant’s due process and sufficiency of the evidence challenges, the court affirmed the trial court’s order holding him in criminal contempt. Appellant, an attorney, was representing a criminal defendant (Bennett) during a bond hearing conducted over Zoom. After the trial “court’s bond ruling, appellant apparently believed that the Zoom hearing had disconnected and used derogatory curse words apparently in reference to the judge. But, the judge heard” him, leading to the order on appeal. Concluding that appellant’s due process claims were not preserved for appellate review, the court held that he failed to establish “plain error affecting his substantial rights.” It determined that his “conduct during the [trial] court’s Zoom hearing satisfied the ‘immediate view and presence’ requirement of MCL 600.1711(1)’s plain language. The trial court conducted a hearing addressing Bennett’s emergency motion to reinstate the prior bond and allowed appellant and Bennett to attend over Zoom. Although appellant was able to establish that Bennett’s additional charges were not committed while he was released on bond, the trial court nonetheless denied the motion, concluding that its amendment to the bond terms did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The trial court then ordered all cases scheduled for resolution the following week. After the court clerk announced the date, the transcript reflects that appellant” made the statement giving rise to the contempt finding. “The contempt occurred ‘in the immediate view and presence of the court.’ . . . That is, it was before the eye, view, or ‘face’ of” the trial court. The court noted “the fact that the trial court conducted the hearing over Zoom instead of physically in the courtroom does not preclude a finding that misconduct or insolent behavior by an attorney constitutes contempt when it nonetheless occurs over video in the immediate view and presence of the court.” It found that appellant failed to show “plain error affecting his substantial rights arising from the trial court’s determination that his conduct constituted criminal contempt, the timing of that conclusion and the punishment, and the due process afforded him to prepare and present a defense.” It also held that, viewing “the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s factual findings, there was sufficient evidence to support appellant’s criminal contempt.”