was represented by counsel at the contempt hearing. Before discussing the contempt issue, respondent’s counsel moved to dismiss the charge on the basis that the hearing was not held within seventy-two hours after respondent’s arrest or arraignment as required by statute and court rule. The trial court denied respondent’s motion, stating that it was unsure whether dismissal was the appropriate remedy for the late hearing because respondent was not prejudiced by the delay. Consequently, respondent’s challenge to the timing of the contempt hearing was raised before and addressed by the trial court and was preserved for our review. See Miller v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co, 218 Mich App 221, 235; 553 NW2d 371 (1996); see also People v Crawford, 429 Mich 151, 156-157; 414 NW2d 360 (1987) (<HOLDING>), and People v Weston, 413 Mich 371, 372-373;
holding that the trial courts error in not allowing defendant to testify on direct examination as to nature and circumstances of prior convictions was not harmless error where credibility of the defendant was critical to the deliberations of the jury holding that an individual charged with criminal contempt is entitled to the full procedural protections afforded the defendant in any other criminal proceeding holding that examination of separate criminal episodes for double jeopardy purposes should encompass entire evidentiary record rather than just charging document and verdict form holding that a criminal defendant must object to an untimely preliminary examination before commencement of the preliminary examination to be entitled to relief in the form of dismissal of the criminal charge holding that the purpose of a preliminary examination is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed it