Contempt
Category > Contempt
The trial court properly found that absent evidence of defendant’s gang membership, enforcing the injunction against him violated his right to procedural due process.Defendant was found to be in contempt for violating a gang injunction. However, the injunction burdened the defendant’s constitutionally protected liberty interests as he was entitled to some adequate predeprivation process to determine whether he was a gang member subject to the injunction. The trial court properly dismissed the misdemeanor criminal contempt charge.id: 25469
The juvenile court must comply with statutory procedures governing civil contempt before ordering the confinement of a contemptuous habitual truant. The juvenile court retains authority to order the secure confinement of a habitual truant who is found to be in contempt of court. However, the juvenile court must comply with statutory procedures governing civil contempt proceedings before ordering the secure confinement of a contemptuous habitual truant.id: 23348
The witness was improperly found to be in contempt where the court's order failed to cite details and merely referred to the witness's failure to answer questions.At an Evidence Code section 402 hearing the trial court ruled that the marital privilege and Fifth Amendment privilege did not apply to the witness. The court thereafter found the witness was in contempt of court for failing to answer the questions. While the court cited no authority, it likely relied on Code of Civil Procedure section 1209, subd.(a)(9). However, the court's order failed to cite sufficient details for a reviewing court to determine whether the witness's conduct was contemptuous. Merely stating that she refused to answer questions was insufficient to support the order.id: 18156
The trial court erred in summarily adjudicating defendant's acts of contempt after the verdict.Defendant was highly disruptive at his first trial which ended in a mistrial, and his second trial. At sentencing, the court found him guilty of contempt on at least five occasions, and added five consecutive six-month jail terms to be served concurrently with his prison sentence. However, defendant was entitled to due process and a jury trial on these counts, and the court erred in summarily adjudicating these acts of contempt after the verdict.
id: 18110
Ordering defendant jailed without bail, and scheduling a hearing a month later for "contempt" of the court's assistant was a de facto revocation of probation without satisfying any of the due process requirements.Defendant appeared in court regarding a possible probation violation, and a judicial assistant angrily notified the judge that defendant refused to make the $1,000 donation to "Laura's House," a battered woman's shelter. The payment had been a condition of his probation. The trial court then ordered defendant to be taken into custody for lack of cooperation with the judicial assistant. However, placing defendant in jail, denying him bail, and scheduling a hearing a month later constituted a de facto revocation of his probation without satisfying any of the due process requirements demanded upon such revocation. Moreover, the trial court should not have personally selected the charity to which defendant was ordered to contribute. Because of the judge's personal embroilment in the case, defendant could request the case be transferred to another judge.id: 18393
Trial court cannot punish conduct which amounts to a violation of a probation condition as a contempt of court.In addition to revoking probation, the trial court may not punish conduct which amounts to a violation of a condition of probation as a contempt of court pursuant to Penal Code section 166, subd. (4).id: 10819
General contempt statute is superseded by specific statute regarding juvenile violations of probation conditions that are merely status offenses and not separate crimes.Criminal contempts of the juvenile court that are status violations may only be punished under the special contempt statute (Welfare and Institutions Code section 213) and not under the more general contempt statute (Penal Code section 166.) Although both statutes facially apply because they are not inconsistent, the legislative intent is that Penal Code section 166 not be used in juvenile court proceedings to enforce status violations of probation orders.id: 10815
Acting in concert with an enjoined party for purposes of violating an injunction requires more than knowing of the injunction and acting in ways the enjoined parties may not.Defendants were abortion protesters arrested for picketing in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic. They were convicted of disobeying a lawful court order enjoining the similar activities of other individuals and groups. However, acting in concert with enjoined parties requires more than just knowing of the injunction and acting in ways the parties are enjoined from acting. An actual relationship with an enjoined party is required to bring a nonparty actor within the injunction's scope. The evidence showed a single interaction between a defendant and an enjoined party - one motioned the other to leave the demonstration. This was insufficient to find the defendant acted in concert with the enjoined party.id: 10808
Contempt proceeding was invalid where it was not initiated by the filing of an affidavit.After being informed that defendant had made a communication with a juror on a street corner, the court conducted proceedings, including the questioning of two witnesses and determined an improper communication had in fact occurred. The court then found defendant in contempt of court and sentenced him to 72 hours in county jail. The order was invalid because Code of Civil Procedure section 1211 requires the proceedings to be initiated by the filing of an affidavit setting forth the facts on which the contempt charge was based. This requirement was not satisfied by the testimony of the two jurors.id: 10813
Contempt judgment was set aside where it failed to specify the particular acts upon which the court based the exercise of its contempt power.Petitioner was held in contempt of court for refusing to comply with a discovery order made pursuant to the reciprocal discovery provisions of Proposition 115. However, the written judgement of contempt failed to comply with the strict statutory requirements applicable to judgments of contempt because the judgement failed to specify sufficiently the particular acts upon which the trial court based the exercise of its contempt power.id: 10811
Newsperson cannot be held in contempt for refusing to surrender unpublished information despite the assertion of the People's right to due process as set forth in Proposition 115.In 1990 the voters enacted a constitutional amendment as part of Proposition 115 affirming the People's right to due process of law in criminal cases. The assertion of that right by a prosecutor cannot serve as a justification for holding a newsperson in contempt for refusing to surrender unpublished information, in spite of the newsperson's immunity from contempt for such refusal expressly provided in California Constitution, article 1, section 2(b), and reaffirmed in article 1, section 28(d).id: 15587
Defendant in a contempt action under section 11229 has the right to a jury trial.Because a defendant in a contempt proceeding under Penal Code section 11229 faces a potential sentence of six months imprisonment and a $1,000.00 fine per violation <197> a sentence equivalent to that of many misdemeanors <197> the California Constitution guarantees the defendant the right to trial by jury in such a proceeding. Nothing will prohibit the People from proceeding against a person who has violated the provision under the less serious general contempt provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1209. However, in contempt actions charged under section 11229, due process requires that the prosecution afford defendant fair notice of the nature of the penalties and proceedings he will face by indicating in the declarations filed to initiate the contempt proceeding, the jurisdictional basis for the action.id: 10814
Trial counsel in contempt proceedings for failing to explain how she came into possession of certain evidence may not invoke the attorney-client privilege based on agency without showing evidence of an agency. The trial court found defense counsel was in contempt for failing to answer questions from the court about the circumstances under which she came into possession of specific evidence. Counsel argued the evidence was delivered to her by the defendant’s agents and therefore the circumstances of the delivery and her observations of it were protected by the attorney-client privilege. However, counsel failed to show the existence of an agency and her petition for a writ of prohibition was denied.id: 23358
The trial court erred by fining the prosecutor $50 for an improper ex parte disclosure of defense counsel’s disciplinary record because there was no violation of a court order and no written statement of reasons.The trial court fined the prosecutor $50 for contempt of court under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 for providing the court with a copy of defense counsel’s disciplinary record without notifying counsel first. However, the fine was improper because it was not imposed for violation of a court order, and the court did not provide the prosecutor with a written statement of reasons or provide any other required procedural due process protection.id: 20672
Trial court erred by imposing monetary sanctions against the prosecutor for the improper use of peremptory challenges leading to a mistrial.The trial court found the prosecutor improperly exercised peremptory challenges, leading to a mistrial and dismissal of the venire panel. The court imposed a $1,500 sanction against the prosecutor pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5. The record supported the court's finding regarding the improper challenges. However, the statute only applies where a court order has been violated, and there was no such court order in the case. Since the statute does not apply, and the court lacked inherent power (outside of a contempt proceeding) to impose the fine, it was reversed.id: 17318
In a contempt proceeding for failing to pay attorney and expert fees in a family court case, ability to pay, which had already been determined is not an element of the contempt.In a child custody and support proceeding, a father was found to be in contempt of the court's order to pay the mother's attorney and expert fees. He argued the court improperly utilized mandatory presumptions relating to ability to pay in finding him guilty of criminal contempt. However, where ability to pay has already been determined by the family law court in making the order underlying the contempt, ability to pay is not an element of the contempt, but rather inability to pay is an affirmative defense. The contempt proceeding was criminal in nature, and while a mandatory presumption may not be used to find a person guilty of contempt, a permissive inference may be used.id: 14909
Ability to pay child support is an affirmative defense in a contempt action.In a contempt action for failure to pay child support, ability to pay is an affirmative defense rather than an element of the contempt.id: 10807
Attempted murder charges were twice terminated under section 1387 after the second magistrate's order finding insufficient evidence of the charges.Defendant was charged by felony complaint with attempted murder. Both the magistrate at the first preliminary hearing and the Superior Court on a motion under Penal Code section 995 found the evidence insufficient to hold defendant for attempted murder. Then in the second action the magistrate at the preliminary hearing likewise found the evidence insufficient and refused to hold the defendant to answer for attempted murder. The second magistrate's order was a second termination of the charges which bars further prosecution under section 739 for attempted murder.id: 10809
Civil sanctions provision does not apply in criminal actions.Prosecutor refused to dismiss a drug sale charge after admitting the evidence was weak. As penance for his intransigence, the trial court ordered the District Attorney to pay defendant $3,000 in sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5. However, the order was erroneous since section 128.5 does not apply in criminal actions.id: 10810
Contempt proceeding is criminal if the contemnor does not have the power to purge the contempt.Appellant was found to be in contempt for failing to pay child support. The contempt was criminal as opposed to civil contempt since failure to comply with the child support order would result in a 36 month probation period with 25 days in jail regardless of whether the arrearage was paid off.id: 10812
Money sanction against counsel was proper where defendant was ordered to appear in court and counsel did not appear.The trial court imposed a money sanction of $150.00 upon a deputy public defender pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 after counsel failed to appear when the court was to assign a courtroom on the last day for trial. Counsel had appeared with the defendant earlier that morning, and the court ordered defendant to return at 1:30 p.m. A reasonable attorney would have interpreted the court's order for defendant to appear as an order that his attorney also appear. Under the circumstances, the money sanction was proper. Moreover, a sanction is appropriate under section 177.5 for violation of an order without good cause. This violation does not require a subjective intent.id: 10816
One count of contempt is permitted for each day the prohibited nuisance is permitted to continue.Insofar as an injunction authorized under the Red Light Abatement Law (Penal Code sections 11225 et seq.) is an injunction to abate a nuisance, namely, the maintaining of premises where prostitution and lewdness occur, persons who violate such an injunction may properly be charged under section 11229 with only one count of contempt for each separate day they permit the prohibited nuisance to continue.id: 10817
The municipal court had authority to entertain defendant's constitutional challenge to the validity of the superior court injunction that was the basis of the contempt charge.Defendant violated a preliminary injunction issued by the superior court restricting the activities of gang members in a certain geographical area of Los Angeles. The Court of Appeal determined the municipal court and appellate department of the superior court lacked authority to adjudicate defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of an injunction issued by a court of superior jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court determined that while defendant was not entitled to bring a direct attack to dissolve the injunction in municipal court, he was entitled to defend against the contempt charges on the ground the injunction he was accused of violating was unconstitutional.id: 10818
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245