opportunity to present defense in Michigan

2025In a civil contempt proceeding, specifically, “the accused must be accorded rudimentary due process, i.e., notice and an opportunity to present a defense, and the party seeking enforcement of the court’s order bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the order was violated.” Porter, 285 Mich App at 456-457 .

2024In contrast, a party accused of civil contempt “must be accorded rudimentary due process, i.e., notice and an opportunity to present a defense, and the party seeking enforcement of the court’s order bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the order was violated.” Id. at 457 .

1969This question was answered in Harrington v. Huff & Mitchell Co., 155 Mich 139 , by quoting from Henderson v. Henderson, 3 Hare 100 (67 Eng Rep 313), where the vice-chancellor said: “ ‘In trying this question, I believe I state the rule of the court correctly, when I say, that where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of adjudication by, a court of competent jurisdiction, the court requires the parties to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matter which

1959This question was answered in Harrington v. Huff & Mitchell Co., 155 Mich 139, 141 , by quoting from Henderson v. Henderson, 3 Hare 100, 114, 115 (67 Eng Rep 313), where the vice-chancellor said: “ Tn trying this question, I believe I state the rule of the court correctly, when I say, that where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of adjudication by, a court of competent jurisdiction, the court requires the parties to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect o

2017The concept of due process is flexible, and analysis of what process is due in a particular proceeding depends on the nature of the proceeding, the risks involved, and the private and governmental interests that might be affected. [In re Contempt of Henry, 282 Mich App at 669 .] -24- “[I]n a civil contempt proceeding, the accused must be accorded rudimentary due process, i.e., notice and an opportunity to present a defense, and the party seeking enforcement of the court’s order bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the order was violated.” Porter v Porter, 285 Mic

2016MCL 600.1711(2); In re Contempt of Henry, 282 Mich App at 675 .

2026See In re Sanders, 495 Mich 394, 405 ; 852 NW2d 524 (2014) (“To initiate a child protective proceeding, the state must file . . . a petition containing facts that constitute an offense against the child under the juvenile code (i.e., MCL 712A.2(b)).”); In re Dearmon, 303 Mich App 684, 693-694 ; 847 NW2d 514 (2014) (explaining that service of a petition “places a parent on notice” of the intention to terminate his or her parental rights, “apprises the parent of the charges levied against him or her,” and “affords reasonable time to prepare a defense”).

2024As plaintiff notes in her brief on appeal, this Court has stated that a person “charged with contempt is entitled to be informed . . . whether the contempt proceedings are civil or criminal . . . .” DeGeorge, 276 Mich App at 592 .

2023People v Chapo, 283 Mich App 360, 364 ; 770 NW2d 68 (2009). “[T]he constitutional notice requirement is not an abstract legal technicality; it is a -4- practical requirement that gives effect to a defendant’s right to know and respond to the charges against him.” People v McGee, 258 Mich App 683, 699 ; 672 NW2d 191 (2003) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2023People v Chapo, 283 Mich App 360, 364 ; 770 NW2d 68 (2009). “[T]he constitutional notice requirement is not an abstract legal technicality; it is a -4- practical requirement that gives effect to a defendant’s right to know and respond to the charges against him.” People v McGee, 258 Mich App 683, 699 ; 672 NW2d 191 (2003) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2020Defendant contends that, had defense counsel conducted a proper pretrial investigation, he would have realized it was imperative to call defendant to the stand to testify on his own behalf, and counsel’s failure to do so deprived defendant of the opportunity to present a defense. “[T]he failure to call witnesses only constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel if it deprives the defendant of a substantial defense.” People v Russell, 297 Mich App 707, 716 ; 825 NW2d 623 (2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2020Defendant contends that, had defense counsel conducted a proper pretrial investigation, he would have realized it was imperative to call defendant to the stand to testify on his own behalf, and counsel’s failure to do so deprived defendant of the opportunity to present a defense. “[T]he failure to call witnesses only constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel if it deprives the defendant of a substantial defense.” People v Russell, 297 Mich App 707, 716 ; 825 NW2d 623 (2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2016Notably, “[w]hen proceedings for contempt for disobeying any order of the court are initiated, the notice or order shall be personally delivered to such party, unless otherwise specially ordered by the court.” MCL 600.1968(4); see also MCR 2.107(B)(1)(b) (“When a contempt proceeding for disobeying a court order is initiated, the notice or order must be personally delivered to the party[.]”); S Abraham & Sons, 260 Mich App at 24 n 11; In re Contempt of Steingold, 244 Mich App 153, 158 ; 624 NW2d 504 (2000).

2016Notably, “[w]hen proceedings for contempt for disobeying any order of the court are initiated, the notice or order shall be personally delivered to such party, unless otherwise specially ordered by the court.” MCL 600.1968(4); see also MCR 2.107(B)(1)(b) (“When a contempt proceeding for disobeying a court order is initiated, the notice or order must be personally delivered to the party[.]”); S Abraham & Sons, 260 Mich App at 24 n 11; In re Contempt of Steingold, 244 Mich App 153, 158 ; 624 NW2d 504 (2000).

2016Notably, “[w]hen proceedings for contempt for disobeying any order of the court are initiated, the notice or order shall be personally delivered to such party, unless otherwise specially ordered by the court.” MCL 600.1968(4); see also MCR 2.107(B)(1)(b) (“When a contempt proceeding for disobeying a court order is initiated, the notice or order must be personally delivered to the party[.]”); S Abraham & Sons, 260 Mich App at 24 n 11; In re Contempt of Steingold, 244 Mich App 153, 158 ; 624 NW2d 504 (2000).

2015“Logical relevance is the foundation for admissibility of evidence.” People v Small, 467 Mich 259, 264 ; 650 NW2d 328 (2002); MCL 768.29.

2015“Logical relevance is the foundation for admissibility of evidence.” People v Small, 467 Mich 259, 264 ; 650 NW2d 328 (2002); MCL 768.29.

2015Although defendant successfully objected to the testimony at trial, he did not argue that the attempted introduction of the testimony constituted prosecutorial misconduct. “[A]n objection on one ground is insufficient to preserve an appellate argument based on a different ground.” People v Danto, 294 Mich App 596, 605 ; 822 NW2d 600 (2011).

2013We hold that, under People v Finley, 431 Mich 506 ; 431 NW2d 19 (1988), and People v Boyd, 470 Mich 363 ; 682 NW2d 459 (2004), defendant waived this argument for appellate review given his failure to actually testify on his own behalf; the plain-error test is not applicable.

2013We hold that, under People v Finley, 431 Mich 506 ; 431 NW2d 19 (1988), and People v Boyd, 470 Mich 363 ; 682 NW2d 459 (2004), defendant waived this argument for appellate review given his failure to actually testify on his own behalf; the plain-error test is not applicable.

2013We hold that, under People v Finley, 431 Mich 506 ; 431 NW2d 19 (1988), and People v Boyd, 470 Mich 363 ; 682 NW2d 459 (2004), defendant waived this argument for appellate review given his failure to actually testify on his own behalf; the plain-error test is not applicable.

2013We hold that, under People v Finley, 431 Mich 506 ; 431 NW2d 19 (1988), and People v Boyd, 470 Mich 363 ; 682 NW2d 459 (2004), defendant waived this argument for appellate review given his failure to actually testify on his own behalf; the plain-error test is not applicable.

2009Bowler v Bowler, 351 Mich 398, 405 ; 88 NW2d 505 (1958); Auto Club, supra at 712-713.

2009Bowler v Bowler, 351 Mich 398, 405 ; 88 NW2d 505 (1958); Auto Club, supra at 712-713.

1935Without prolonging this opinion by quotations, examination of the following authorities will show them to be applicable: People v. McCrory, 41 Cal. 458 ; Gardner v. People, 106 Ill. 76 ; State v. Maresca, 85 Conn. 509 ( 83 Atl. 635 ); People v. Kleist, 311 Ill. 179 ( 142 N. E. 486 ); Miller v. State, 160 Ark. 245 ( 254 S. W. 487 ) State v. Oberst, 127 Kan. 412 ( 273 Pac. 490 ); Polk v. State, 26 Okla.

1935Without prolonging this opinion by quotations, examination of the following authorities will show them to be applicable: People v. McCrory, 41 Cal. 458 ; Gardner v. People, 106 Ill. 76 ; State v. Maresca, 85 Conn. 509 ( 83 Atl. 635 ); People v. Kleist, 311 Ill. 179 ( 142 N. E. 486 ); Miller v. State, 160 Ark. 245 ( 254 S. W. 487 ) State v. Oberst, 127 Kan. 412 ( 273 Pac. 490 ); Polk v. State, 26 Okla.

1935Without prolonging this opinion by quotations, examination of the following authorities will show them to be applicable: People v. McCrory, 41 Cal. 458 ; Gardner v. People, 106 Ill. 76 ; State v. Maresca, 85 Conn. 509 ( 83 Atl. 635 ); People v. Kleist, 311 Ill. 179 ( 142 N. E. 486 ); Miller v. State, 160 Ark. 245 ( 254 S. W. 487 ) State v. Oberst, 127 Kan. 412 ( 273 Pac. 490 ); Polk v. State, 26 Okla.

1935Without prolonging this opinion by quotations, examination of the following authorities will show them to be applicable: People v. McCrory, 41 Cal. 458 ; Gardner v. People, 106 Ill. 76 ; State v. Maresca, 85 Conn. 509 ( 83 Atl. 635 ); People v. Kleist, 311 Ill. 179 ( 142 N. E. 486 ); Miller v. State, 160 Ark. 245 ( 254 S. W. 487 ) State v. Oberst, 127 Kan. 412 ( 273 Pac. 490 ); Polk v. State, 26 Okla.

1935Trifling with the court by entering and withdrawing pleas is not to be tolerated; but, under the record above recited, we believe it was an abuse of discretion to deny the defendant’s request to withdraw his plea of guilty.” The fact that the accused may be shown to be guilty does not justify denying him the opportunity to present a defense through counsel: People v. Kurant, 331 Ill. 470 ( 163 N. E. 411 ); People v. Carzoli, 340 Ill. 587 ( 173 N. E. 141 ).

1935Trifling with the court by entering and withdrawing pleas is not to be tolerated; but, under the record above recited, we believe it was an abuse of discretion to deny the defendant’s request to withdraw his plea of guilty.” The fact that the accused may be shown to be guilty does not justify denying him the opportunity to present a defense through counsel: People v. Kurant, 331 Ill. 470 ( 163 N. E. 411 ); People v. Carzoli, 340 Ill. 587 ( 173 N. E. 141 ).

1935Without prolonging this opinion by quotations, examination of the following authorities will show them to be applicable: People v. McCrory, 41 Cal. 458 ; Gardner v. People, 106 Ill. 76 ; State v. Maresca, 85 Conn. 509 ( 83 Atl. 635 ); People v. Kleist, 311 Ill. 179 ( 142 N. E. 486 ); Miller v. State, 160 Ark. 245 ( 254 S. W. 487 ) State v. Oberst, 127 Kan. 412 ( 273 Pac. 490 ); Polk v. State, 26 Okla.

1935Without prolonging this opinion by quotations, examination of the following authorities will show them to be applicable: People v. McCrory, 41 Cal. 458 ; Gardner v. People, 106 Ill. 76 ; State v. Maresca, 85 Conn. 509 ( 83 Atl. 635 ); People v. Kleist, 311 Ill. 179 ( 142 N. E. 486 ); Miller v. State, 160 Ark. 245 ( 254 S. W. 487 ) State v. Oberst, 127 Kan. 412 ( 273 Pac. 490 ); Polk v. State, 26 Okla.

1935Without prolonging this opinion by quotations, examination of the following authorities will show them to be applicable: People v. McCrory, 41 Cal. 458 ; Gardner v. People, 106 Ill. 76 ; State v. Maresca, 85 Conn. 509 ( 83 Atl. 635 ); People v. Kleist, 311 Ill. 179 ( 142 N. E. 486 ); Miller v. State, 160 Ark. 245 ( 254 S. W. 487 ) State v. Oberst, 127 Kan. 412 ( 273 Pac. 490 ); Polk v. State, 26 Okla.

1935Without prolonging this opinion by quotations, examination of the following authorities will show them to be applicable: People v. McCrory, 41 Cal. 458 ; Gardner v. People, 106 Ill. 76 ; State v. Maresca, 85 Conn. 509 ( 83 Atl. 635 ); People v. Kleist, 311 Ill. 179 ( 142 N. E. 486 ); Miller v. State, 160 Ark. 245 ( 254 S. W. 487 ) State v. Oberst, 127 Kan. 412 ( 273 Pac. 490 ); Polk v. State, 26 Okla.

1935Without prolonging this opinion by quotations, examination of the following authorities will show them to be applicable: People v. McCrory, 41 Cal. 458 ; Gardner v. People, 106 Ill. 76 ; State v. Maresca, 85 Conn. 509 ( 83 Atl. 635 ); People v. Kleist, 311 Ill. 179 ( 142 N. E. 486 ); Miller v. State, 160 Ark. 245 ( 254 S. W. 487 ) State v. Oberst, 127 Kan. 412 ( 273 Pac. 490 ); Polk v. State, 26 Okla.

1935Without prolonging this opinion by quotations, examination of the following authorities will show them to be applicable: People v. McCrory, 41 Cal. 458 ; Gardner v. People, 106 Ill. 76 ; State v. Maresca, 85 Conn. 509 ( 83 Atl. 635 ); People v. Kleist, 311 Ill. 179 ( 142 N. E. 486 ); Miller v. State, 160 Ark. 245 ( 254 S. W. 487 ) State v. Oberst, 127 Kan. 412 ( 273 Pac. 490 ); Polk v. State, 26 Okla.

1935Without prolonging this opinion by quotations, examination of the following authorities will show them to be applicable: People v. McCrory, 41 Cal. 458 ; Gardner v. People, 106 Ill. 76 ; State v. Maresca, 85 Conn. 509 ( 83 Atl. 635 ); People v. Kleist, 311 Ill. 179 ( 142 N. E. 486 ); Miller v. State, 160 Ark. 245 ( 254 S. W. 487 ) State v. Oberst, 127 Kan. 412 ( 273 Pac. 490 ); Polk v. State, 26 Okla.