Criminal contempt for violating a PPO; MCL 600.2950a(23); Sufficiency of the evidence showing a violation of a PPO; MCR 3.708(H)(3); “Stalking”; MCL 750.411h(1)(d)

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding respondent guilty of criminal contempt because the evidence was sufficient to show she violated the terms of her PPO by stalking petitioner. The trial court entered the PPO based on respondent’s continued harassment of petitioner and her husband (with whom respondent shared children). She was subsequently convicted of criminal contempt for violating the PPO by sending texts to petitioner’s phone while she was incarcerated for violating a previous PPO. The trial court sentenced her to 45 days in jail. On appeal, the court rejected her argument that petitioner presented insufficient evidence that she violated the PPO. “While respondent claimed that she merely inadvertently contacted petitioner because she believed she was contacting petitioner’s husband to arrange parenting time with her children, she did not dispute that the phone number belonged to petitioner or that the contacts actually occurred.” Petitioner established she “felt harassed by respondent’s constant contacts which put a ‘huge strain’ on her and her family.” The record supported the trial court’s conclusion that respondent “knew or had every reason to know that she contacted petitioner’s phone.” Affirmed.