Court Opinion

ID: 9656425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:48:01.463218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:32.313014
License: Public Domain

M. J. Kelly, J.
(dissenting). MCL 600.1701; MSA *66627A.1701 allows a trial court to punish by fine or imprisonment a person guilty of misconduct in certain enumerated cases. The issuance of an order of contempt rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and is not reviewable except for abuse of discretion. In the Matter of Peisner, 78 Mich App 642, 643; 261 NW2d 30 (1977). Criminal contempt orders seek to punish a defendant for a defendant’s past disobedience and are characterized by the imposition of a determinate sentence without any opportunity for the contemnor to purge himself of the contempt. Michigan v Powers, 97 Mich App 166, 171; 293 NW2d 752 (1980), lv den 410 Mich 860 (1980). In criminal contempt cases, proof of guilt must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Id., 171. It must be demonstrated that the defendant acted culpably, in "wilful disregard of disobedience of the authority or orders of the court”. People v Kurz, 35 Mich App 643, 652; 192 NW2d 594 (1971), lv den 387 Mich 756 (1972).
In this case, the defendant admitted that he had lied during the guilty-plea proceedings. This type of bahavior is covered by MCL 600.1701; MSA 27A.1701 and is punishable as contempt. While the defendant tried to show that he had reasons for lying to the judge, I do not feel this absolves him of contempt. Nor do I agree with the majority that the defendant’s contempt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant admitted to lying, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found him guilty of contempt. I would affirm the defendant’s conviction.