Michigan Supreme Court Bars Remand in Summary Contempt Case Due to Insufficient Record and Finality of Proceedings
In re Contempt of Kathy H. Murphy
MSC Opinion Published: July 25, 2025
MSC Docket No. 165666
J. Thomas, jointed by C.J. Cavanaugh, J. Welch and J. Bolden
J. Welch, concurrence; J. Bernstein and J. Zahra, dissent
Holding: The Court held that remanding for nonsummary contempt proceedings after vacating a summary conviction for insufficient findings is improper when the original contempt was appropriately handled summarily (because it occurred in the judge’s presence) however, the record was too insufficient to support a conviction and the original proceeding has long concluded.
Facts: Attorney Kathy H. Murphy was summarily held in criminal contempt by a 36th District Court judge for alleged disrespectful conduct during a recess in a preliminary examination. The judge sentenced her to two days in jail without placing specific factual findings on the record. Murphy appealed to the Wayne County Circuit Court. Wayne Circuit Court vacated the conviction, finding the record insufficient to support the contempt finding, but remanded for a nonsummary contempt proceeding. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Wayne Circuit Court’s decision, rejecting Murphy’s claim of double jeopardy.
Key Appellate Ruling:
Remand for nonsummary proceedings would be improper in this matter because they would be futile and exceed the scope of the judiciary’s inherent contempt powers, which must be used with restraint. Appellate courts should not remand for new fact-finding when the purpose of the contempt power has already been served.
The Court reaffirmed that summary contempt must be based on conduct occurring in the court’s immediate view and presence, however a sufficient factual record must be made, even in summary proceedings, to permit appellate review. The Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ analysis on double jeopardy, finding it unnecessary to reach the constitutional question since the case was resolved on nonconstitutional grounds.
Separate Opinions:
Justice Welch’s concurrence argued the remand was also barred by Double Jeopardy Clauses (U.S. & Michigan Constitutions).Since the contempt conviction was vacated due to insufficient evidence, retrying Murphy would violate protections against successive prosecutions for the same offense.
Justice Bernstein’s dissent, joined by Justice Zahra, sisagreed with the majority’s conclusion that remand was improper and instead argued that remand would not exceed contempt powers and was consistent with Michigan precedent allowing remands for additional fact-finding in bench trials when records are insufficient. The dissent further criticized reliance on out-of-state precedent and viewed the case as remediable procedural error.
