in Re Contempt of Paterson
331359
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 9, 2017Background
- Andrew A. Paterson, counsel for plaintiffs in underlying litigation, was held in contempt by the Ingham Circuit Court and found guilty of criminal contempt.
- Paterson appealed the criminal contempt finding to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
- The appellate court analyzed whether Paterson received required due process protections for criminal contempt (notice of criminal character, opportunity to prepare, counsel, privilege against self-incrimination, proof beyond a reasonable doubt).
- The trial court never informed Paterson that proceedings were criminal rather than civil until after finding him in criminal contempt.
- Paterson made admissions and lacked meaningful opportunity to secure counsel or present a defense; the admissions implicated his Fifth Amendment protections.
- The Court of Appeals concluded the proceedings were effectively civil in purpose (to induce compliance) and that criminal procedures and safeguards were not provided, producing reversible plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant received constitutionally required notice that contempt was criminal | Paterson: he was not informed the proceedings were criminal and lacked opportunity to defend or counsel | State: (implicit) contempt finding appropriate; no forfeiture or waiver asserted | Court: Plain error; Paterson lacked notice of criminal nature — reversal required |
| Whether criminal-contest safeguards were afforded (counsel, preparation, proof beyond reasonable doubt) | Paterson: deprived of counsel, meaningful preparation, right against self-incrimination, and proof standard | State: argued Paterson admitted noncompliance (waiver/consent) | Court: Safeguards violated; admissions occurred without Miranda-type protection and cannot substitute for process |
| Whether the contempt was civil (coercive) or criminal (punitive) in purpose | Paterson: court’s action was to induce compliance, thus civil procedure appropriate | State: characterized as criminal contempt at disposition | Court: Record shows coercive purpose; civil contempt was appropriate, so criminal finding was improper |
| Whether any rights were waived | State: asserted waiver of constitutional rights | Paterson: could not knowingly waive because he was not told proceedings were criminal | Court: No waiver — waiver requires intentional relinquishment of a known right; none here |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Contempt of Henry, 282 Mich. App. 656 (discusses contempt review standards and due process distinctions)
- Porter v. Porter, 285 Mich. App. 450 (distinguishes civil vs. criminal contempt and lists requisite process for criminal contempt)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain-error test for unpreserved issues)
- DeGeorge v. Warheit, 276 Mich. App. 587 (enumerates due process safeguards in criminal contempt proceedings)
- People v. Carter, 462 Mich. 206 (waiver requires intentional relinquishment of a known right)