Thorne v. Municipal Court

DRAPER, P. J.

Adjust in contempt of the municipal court, John E. Thorne was ordered to pay a fine of $100 or serve 5 days in jail on each of two counts. After hearing, the

[251]

superior court denied his petition for writ of review. He appeals.

Appellant was the attorney for defendants in trial of a criminal case. The order as to count one states that “while this court was in session and during the direct examination of . . . a witness for the People," appellant “rose from the counsel table and walked out of the courtroom without requesting permission from the court and without authorization from the court. . . . [H]e remained outside said courtroom for several minutes before returning. . . . [Proceedings in the trial were necessarily stayed during his absence and the due course of the trial was interrupted. ’ ’

If these recitals are supported, there was a contempt. A defendant is entitled to counsel in a criminal trial, and when he is represented, the court cannot proceed in counsel’s absence

(Arthur

v.

Superior Court,

62 Cal.2d 404, 411 [42 Cal.Rptr. 441, 398 P.2d 777]). It is the attorney’s duty to be present at all times during the trial

(Lyons

v.

Superior Court,

43 Cal.2d 755, 760-761 [278 P.2d 681]).

Appellant argues, however, that the facts do not support the recitals. Review extends to the entire record

(In re Lake,

65 Cal.App. 420, 424 [224 P. 126]), and since the contempt proceeding is criminal, no presumptions or intendments are to be indulged in to support the order

(Raiden

v.

Superior Court,