In Re Roberts

THE COURT.

Petitioner was adjudged in contempt of court for failure to return to court as a witness for defendant in a criminal case on the trial date to which such case was continued. A jail sentence was imposed and in addition thereto a fine was assessed with an alternative of further imprisonment in lieu of the fine. Commitment was issued and petitioner remanded to custody. The commitment sets out that subpoena directing petitioner to appear in court April 30, 1934, at 10 o’clock A. M., as witness in the case of

People

v.

Frank J.

Golden, was issued and served on her; that she was in court as a witness on April 30th; that all witnesses were ordered by the court, in open court, to remain in attendance except during such time as the court on April 30 and May 1, 1934, declared recesses over noon hours and evenings; that petitioner failed to attend court May 1, 1934; that she was brought in on a bench warrant; that a hearing on charge of contempt was held, at which petitioner testified; “and it appearing to said court that the failure of said Belle McCord Roberts to attend as a witness in this court on said May 1, 1934, was willful and intentional’’, she was adjudged in contempt of court and the punishment was imposed.

It appears from the transcript of the proceedings at the contempt hearing that the case was called for trial “somewhere around 9:30 to 10 o’clock Monday morning’’ (April 30th), whereas the subpoena had directed petitioner to appear at 10 o’clock A. M. She stated that another case was

[72]

being heard when she arrived in court on April 30th, that she asked the clerk about the Golden case and the latter said it would not be tried until later, and that petitioner then left and went to Long Beach, where defendant was staying. There was no evidence that petitioner was present in court when the court instructed the witnesses to return on Tuesday. Petitioner testified that she was not in court when the case was called and that she did not know she had to be in court on Tuesday; that she was not familiar with court procedure and had been excused by the attorneys for defendant who had subpoenaed her.