Salazar v. Superior Court CA4/2

California Court of Appeal Mar 3, 2015 No. E062264Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of criminal contempt because the witness's testimony was ambiguous and did not demonstrate a specific intent to frustrate court orders.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of criminal contempt against the petitioner.

Disposition. Petition granted; peremptory writ issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the facts of contempt must be clearly established and may not be determined with the aid of information not in the record.”

“the evidence supports no more than a finding that the witness inadvertently gave a response that arguably violated the court’s order. The harsh remedy of contempt was not available in these circumstances.”

Filed 3/3/15 Salazar v. Superior Court 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

IBIS SALAZAR,

Petitioner, E062264

v. (Super.Ct.No. RIC1409844)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION RIVERSIDE COUNTY,

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. John W. Vineyard,

Judge. Petition granted.

La Cues Law Group, Jerry La Cues and Brett La Cues, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

No appearance for Real Party in Interest

The law being clear and no response having been received from respondent and/or

real party in interest, the petition is granted.

DISCUSSION

Although criminal contempt is available as a remedy where such conduct tends to

impede, embarrass, or obstruct the court (In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217), the

Salazar v. Superior Court CA4/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

IBIS SALAZAR,

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION RIVERSIDE COUNTY,

THE PEOPLE,

DISCUSSION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CODRINGTON J.

AI Brief