Salazar v. Superior Court CA4/2 ( 2015 )

Filed 3/3/15 Salazar v. Superior Court CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
IBIS SALAZAR,
Petitioner, E062264
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIC1409844)
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION
RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
Respondent;
THE PEOPLE,
Real Party in Interest.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. John W. Vineyard,
Judge. Petition granted.
La Cues Law Group, Jerry La Cues and Brett La Cues, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
No appearance for Real Party in Interest
1
The law being clear and no response having been received from respondent and/or
real party in interest, the petition is granted.
DISCUSSION
Although criminal contempt is available as a remedy where such conduct tends to
impede, embarrass, or obstruct the court (In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217), the
facts of contempt must be clearly established and may not be determined with the aid of
information not in the record. (Boysaw v. Superior Court (2000) 23 Cal.4th 215; In re
Littlefield (1993) 5 Cal.4th 122.)
Here, the witness’s testimony was ambiguous and readily susceptible to the
construction that it expressed confusion over the form of the question rather than a
specific intent to frustrate the orders of the court. Even if another witness had made a
similar response, there is nothing in the record to show that petitioner was aware of that
response or the court’s reaction to it. We also note that the trial court was careful to
exonerate petitioner’s counsel from any suspicion of coaching the witness into an
improper response. It seems highly unlikely that the witness would have deliberately
attempted on her own to frame a response that might suggest to the jury that other defects
existed while trying to avoid an outright violation of the court’s order.
Hence, we conclude that the evidence supports no more than a finding that the
witness inadvertently gave a response that arguably violated the court’s order. The harsh
remedy of contempt was not available in these circumstances.
2
DISPOSITION
Let a peremptory writ issue, directing the Superior Court of Riverside County to
vacate its order of contempt against petitioner.
Petitioner is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued,
copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of
service on all parties.
The previously ordered stay, having served its purpose, is LIFTED.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
CODRINGTON
J.
3