In Re Witherspoon

Opinion

TROTTER, P. J.

Petitioner was adjudged in contempt after testifying as a witness against himself over his Fifth Amendment objection. In a dissolution action, petitioner’s wife cited him for contempt, alleging wilful failure to pay court-ordered child support. At the hearing, petitioner was represented by court-appointed counsel, a deputy public defender. Wife’s counsel attempted to call petitioner as a witness in her case-in-chief. Initially, the trial court sustained petitioner’s assertion of a Fifth Amendment privilege not to incriminate himself. Nevertheless, wife’s counsel persisted and the court required petitioner be sworn and answer questions on a “limited issue.”

1

Petitioner’s objection was not restricted to his privilege against self-incrimination but correctly stated his constitutional protection against being a witness against himself.

The Fifth Amendment of the federal Constitution provides: “No person . . . shall be compelled ... to be a witness against himself . . . .” Article I, section 15, of the California Constitution similarly provides: “Persons may not ... be compelled in a criminal cause to be a witness against themselves . . . .”

A civil contempt proceeding is criminal in nature because of the penalties that may be imposed.

(Raiden

v.

Superior Court

(1949) 34 Cal.2d 83 [206 P.2d 1081].) Alleged contemners are entitled to most constitutional rights

[1002]

guaranteed to all criminally accused persons.

2

(In re Martin

(1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 472 [139 Cal.Rptr. 451].) Thus, an alleged contemner is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

(Bennett

v.