Termination of ex parte PPOs; Nondomestic PPOs; MCL 600.2950a(1); “Stalking”; MCL 750.411h(1)(d) & 750.411i(1)(e); “Harassment”; MCL 750.411h(1)(c) & 750.411i(1)(d); Burden of justifying continuation of an ex parte PPO; Pickering v. Pickering; Exclusion of evidence about respondent’s acts before the end of prior litigation between the parties; Relevance; MRE 401 & 402; People v. Henry; Materiality; Hardrick v. Auto Club Ins Ass’n; MRE 403; Effect of an evidentiary error; MCR 2.613(A); People v. Lukity

Concluding that petitioners did not explain how the trial court’s exclusion of their proffered evidence was outcome-determinative, and that they failed to justify continuation of the ex parte PPOs, the court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating the PPOs. The parties were “adjacent neighbors who previously litigated over a boundary dispute and competing nuisance claims.” Petitioners each obtained ex parte PPOs “against respondent related to his serious, un-neighborly conduct.” He moved to terminate the PPOs. Petitioners argued that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence about incidents that occurred before the end of the previous litigation. They contended that this evidence, which included “the use of obscenities, rock throwing, and property destruction, remained material for the trial court’s determination of the need” to continue the PPOs, and that the trial court excluded it based on the passage of time. But the trial court’s explanation on the record indicated that it did not exclude it based “strictly on the passage of time, but after considering it determined that this evidence was immaterial to the issue before it, i.e., whether evidence justified continuation of the PPOs.” The court concluded that the trial court could not “be said to have erred by finding that the resolution of the parties’ conflict at the end of the bench trial rendered previous conduct immaterial to the issues presented for its determination. By excluding evidence of previous conduct the trial court appropriately focused its attention on current events to determine whether respondent’s present conduct justified continuation of the PPOs. The record” indicated that it considered the evidence relevant to an “alleged snowplow incident, spotlight incident, fence damage incident, and” photo of an individual on petitioners’ property. The record reflected that there was conflicting evidence as to “all of these alleged incidents.” The trial court made its ruling based on “weighing the relevant and material evidence presented and its determination of the witnesses’ credibility.” Affirmed.