In Re Moore

California Court of Appeal Aug 10, 1928 No. Docket No. 1709.Published

Before: Craig

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the petitioner was improperly adjudged in contempt because he was justified in believing he would be given an opportunity to comply with court rulings, he had a valid privilege against self-incrimination, and the questions were immaterial.

Issues

Whether the petitioner was properly held in contempt for refusing to answer questions after the court had previously established a procedure for ruling on such refusals.
Whether the petitioner had a valid right to refuse to answer questions on the grounds of self-incrimination and immateriality.
Whether the court had jurisdiction to issue a second commitment.

Disposition. Writ granted and petitioner discharged.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The gist of the contempt is the contumacious intent as well as the conduct of the party.”

“a witness may only be held in contempt for refusal to answer questions which are pertinent to the matter in issue.”

“Another issue was argued by counsel involving the question of the right of the court to issue a second commitment. This, we think, was beyond the jurisdiction of the court.”

CRAIG, J.

The following statement of facts will be taken as a basis for the decision: The trial of a case entitled People v. Albori was in progress. The petitioner herein was called as a witness and was sworn to testify. As his examination progressed he refused to answer some of the questions upon the ground that to do so might tend to incriminate him. Upon such objection being made to answering certain, of the questions, the court informed the witness that he need not answer; as to others the court directed that an answer be given. The witness in each instance complied with the ruling thus made. Finally the examination proceeded as follows:

“Q. By the Court: Where have you been since June 27th? A. I refuse to answer. Q. Where were you when this subpoena was served on you? A. I was&emdash;I refuse to answer. Q. Who served the subpoena on you, do you know ? A. I refuse to-answer.”

Whereupon the court said:

“Well, for your refusal to answer these last three questions you are judged guilty of contempt and sentenced to jail for five days. Prepare a commitment, please, Mr. Yorba. Mr. Bailiff, you take this witness into custody.”

We think the court was in error. The gist of the contempt is the contumacious intent as well as the conduct of the party. The procedure which it had followed justified the witness in believing that upon his refusal to answer any question on the ground stated by him the court would rule

[490]

as to whether or not he must answer, and that this opportunity would be given for compliance with the court’s order before he would be adjudged guilty of contempt for refusing.

Again, we think the witness was well within his rights in refusing to answer the question, “Where have you been since June 27th?” on the ground that it might tend to incriminate Mm. It is easily conceivable that if he was a participant in the difficulty which formed the subject matter of the case on trial, his actions subsequently thereto might tend to incriminate him. As to the other two questions, they were immaterial, and a witness may only be held in contempt for refusal to answer questions which are pertinent to the matter in issue. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 2065.)

In Re Moore

AI Brief

CRAIG, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief