California Court of Appeal Oct 9, 2024 No. E081749Unpublished
Filed 10/9/24 Sowell v. Garcia 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
BRITTNEY BAIRD SOWELL,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E081749
v. (Super.Ct.No. CVPS2301608)
ANTHONY GARCIA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Arthur C. Hester,
Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art VI, §21.) Reversed with directions.
Anthony Garcia, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
Palmer Kazanjian Wohl Hodson, Christopher F. Wohl, Hallie R. Spaulding;
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, and H. Mae G. Alberto for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
1
Plaintiff and respondent Brittney Baird Sowell (Sowell) petitioned for a civil
harassment restraining order protecting her from defendant and appellant Anthony
Garcia (Garcia). (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6, subd. (a)(1).) Following an evidentiary
hearing, the trial court granted the restraining order through June 7, 2026. Garcia raises
three issues on appeal. First, Garcia contends the trial court erred by not permitting him
egregious refusal to permit me to cross-examine [Sowell] during the evidentiary hearing
egregiously violated [due process]. By constraining my ability to challenge [Sowell’s]
assertions and scrutinize the veracity of [her] testimony, the court effectively deprived
me of a critical mechanism for defending myself against baseless accusations.” In sum,
Garcia provided the basic information needed for an appellate argument. Therefore, we
reject Sowell’s assertion that Garcia forfeited the contention.
1 We are not concluding that all proceedings for civil harassment restraining orders must involve oral testimony, rather than declarations. (Schraer v. Berkeley Property Owners’ Assn. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 719, 733, fn. 6.) To be clear, we are holding that when a trial court permits one side in a harassment proceeding to present oral testimony, then the trial court may not entirely prevent the opposing party from cross-examining the witness(es) who testified in court. (Ibid.)
4
“ ‘Not every instance in which a cross-examiner’s question is disallowed will
[the] defendant’s right to a fair hearing be abridged, since the matter may be too
unimportant [citations], or there may be no prejudice [citation], or the question may
involve issues which can be brought up at a more appropriate time [citation]. However,
where the subject of cross-examination concerns the matter at issue there can be no
doubt that the refusal to permit such question[ing] results in a denial of a fair hearing.’ ”
(McCarthy v. Mobile Cranes, Inc. (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 500, 507.)
When arguing in the trial court, Garcia asserted that Sowell sought the
restraining order as “a form of retaliation” for past workplace disagreements, such as
Garcia advocating for better working conditions. Raeck joined in Garcia’s arguments.
If cross-examination had been permitted, Garcia and/or Raeck could have asked
Sowell’s witnesses if they had motives to lie when testifying, e.g., retaliatory motives.
Thus, cross-examination would have concerned the matter at issue. As a result, the
what [the witnesses] would have said on cross-examination, or the effect such testimony
might have had on the trial court’s decision, [so] the error requires reversal.”].)
Sowell contends the error was harmless because Garcia “was provided ample
opportunity to be heard by the court and present contradictory evidence at the hearing.”
Contrary to Sowell’s position, opportunities to provide direct evidence and argument are
not substitutes for cross-examination. Indeed, “[t]he importance of cross-examination
cannot be doubted: ‘Cross-examination is the principal means by which the
believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested.’ ” (In re Brenda M.
5
(2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 772, 777.) For example, “ ‘the cross-examiner has traditionally
been allowed to impeach, i.e., discredit, the witness.’ ” (Ibid.) We have no means of
knowing what relevant information, if any, Garcia would have produced if given the
opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Therefore, the error is prejudicial.
B. REMAINING ISSUES
Because we are reversing and ordering a new hearing, Garcia’s remaining
contentions have been rendered moot. (Schoshinski v. City of Los Angeles (2017) 9
Cal.App.5th 780, 791 [issue is moot when no further relief can be provided].)
Therefore, we will not address the merits of whether the trial court erred by admitting
hearsay and proceeding without the former general manager’s testimony.
DISPOSITION
The order granting the restraining order is reversed. The trial court is directed to
hold a new evidentiary hearing within 30 days of the issuance of the remittitur. (Hall v.
Superior Court (1955) 45 Cal.2d 377, 381 [“ ‘[A]n unqualified reversal remands the
cause for a new trial . . . and places the parties in the trial court in THE same position as
if the cause had never been tried, with the exception that the opinion of the court on
appeal must be followed so far as applicable.’ ”]; Heinfelt v. Arth (1935) 4 Cal.App.2d
381, 383 [same rule].) The trial court shall notify the parties of the scheduled hearing.
The restraining order shall remain effective until the conclusion of the new hearing or
6
30 days after issuance of the remittitur if no hearing takes place.2 If a hearing occurs
and the trial court again grants the restraining order, it may issue a permanent
restraining order through June 7, 2026, or for a lesser period. (In re Marriage of D.S.
and A.S. (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 926, 937-938.) If the trial court denies the petition for a
restraining order, or if no hearing takes place, then the trial court shall issue an order
terminating the three-year restraining order. Garcia is awarded his costs on appeal.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1).)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
FIELDS J.
2 The trial court previously denied Sowell’s request for a temporary restraining order, so we cannot order that a temporary restraining order be reinstated pending a new hearing.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The trial court committed reversible error by denying the defendant the right to cross-examine witnesses during a civil harassment restraining order evidentiary hearing where the court had permitted the plaintiff to present oral testimony.
Issues
Did the trial court err by denying the defendant the right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses?
Did the defendant forfeit the right to challenge the denial of cross-examination on appeal?
Was the denial of cross-examination prejudicial error requiring reversal?