Right to be physically present during a PPO violation hearing; MCR 3.708(H)(2); People v Anderson; Use of videoconferencing technology; MCR 3.708(I); Prejudice; People v Walker; Waiver; People v Kowalski; Criminal contempt; MCL 600.2950(23); MCR 3.708(H)(3)

The court held that respondent forfeited the issue of her physical presence at the trial and sentencing for contempt, and failed to establish that the trial court’s error affected her substantial rights. The trial court found her in criminal contempt for violating a PPO by calling petitioner’s cell phone three times. It held the violation hearing via video conference. On appeal, the court rejected her argument that she was entitled to a new hearing because, although she appeared and participated via video, the trial court did not advise her of her right to be physically present and she did not waive her right to be physically present. It first found she did not waive her argument as to physical presence. It then found that although an error occurred, she failed to show it prejudiced her. The trial court erred by conducting “the evidentiary hearing via video without first advising respondent of her right to appear in person and making the appropriate waivers on the record.” And it was “a clear and obvious error.” However, respondent “failed to show that the errors prejudiced” her by affecting the outcome. The “use of two-way videoconferencing for testimony did not affect her substantial rights.” Affirmed.