Tulelake, CA— Guilty or Not Guilty
Here is the situation there was a person who was minding his own business in a library. In fact he was there to check his email because his computer at the time was not working well.
As time went on a group of second graders came for a tour of the library. Then shortly there after a council member who this person in the library knew came up and began to chat with him. Both felt if might be better to continue the conversation outside in front of the library where they did for quite a while.
Well the next thing this person knows is he was being arrested for violating a restraining order. He had no idea one of the second graders was part of the group that was taking a tour of the library.
It was also claimed while he was outside in front of the library that later the mother and seconded grader were walking up the street and felt because this person was in their view minding his own business they expected him to leave. When he had no knowledge that first of all, the second grader was in the group in the library earlier, nor did he have any idea they were walking up the street.
Because he was having a conversation with a council member on a subject the two of them were discussing and had no idea or was aware of either of the above two situations happening around him.
Is he guilty or not guilty of violating a restringing order?
Case two:
There was a big event coming to town the next day and this person asked the business owner what she was doing and if she was getting ready for the event coming to town. Because she had moved all the stuff from inside the building to the front outside and she said she was not aware of the event because if she had known she would have planned to be open the following day.
So he left and went the other direction then turned around and headed back in her direction until he noticed that inside there was someone who was working that he was not suppose to be around. So instead of making any further contact with the owner he turned around and headed in the opposite direction away from the area. Did he violate the restraining order? Yes or no?
You decide using the information below:
1. What is Contempt of Court?
Penal Code 166 PC defines a variety of conduct that constitutes "contempt of court."
"The purpose of the contempt charge is to enable the courts to vindicate their authority and maintain the dignity and respect due to them.
"4 Contempt of court includes (but is not limited to):
•willfully disobeying a lawfully issued court order,
•willfully and knowingly violating a protective or stay-away court order
In order to convict you of contempt of court for violating a court order, the prosecutor must prove the following facts (otherwise known as "elements" of the crime):
1.the judge issued a legal order,
2.you knew about the order,
3.you had the ability to comply with the order, yet
4.you willfully failed to do so.
1.3. The ability to follow the order
Penal Code 166 PC California's contempt of court law is what we call a "general intent" crime. This means that you can violate this law simply by engaging in the prohibited act.
Because violating a court order is a general intent crime, the prosecutor doesn't need to prove that you intended to violate a court order...only that you intended to engage in the action that constituted the violation.
1.4. Willful failure to comply with the order
Along these same lines, if you violate a court order...but did not do so willfully...then you shouldn't be convicted of contempt of court. Contempt of court requires willful disobedience.
However, if you bump into your co-worker at a restaurant, your conduct may not be willful. Whether the court believes the "run in" was an accident or on purpose would probably depend on your actions once you saw him...for example, did you immediately leave or did you attempt to make further contact? Making further contact would support the fact that you may have willfully disobeyed the order, whereas immediately leaving the restaurant would demonstrate a true accident.
1.5. Penal Code 273.6 PC California's law against violating a restraining order
Penal Code 273.6 PC prohibits violating a California restraining order. This offense is closely related to PC 166. In fact, many of the elements described above are common to both violations. The main difference is that Penal Code 166 not only prohibits violating any court order but also acting in a disrespectful way that interrupts court proceedings. It's simply a broader law.
PC 273.6 specifically prohibits violating a California restraining or protective order.18 If you violate this type of order...which is also addressed under PC 166...prosecutors may choose which offense to charge you with.
2. Legal Defenses to Penal Code 166 PC Contempt of Court
2.2. Lack of intent
Suppose, for example, you incorrectly write down your next court date...and therefore don't appear as instructed. Or you visit a store not knowing that the person you have been ordered to stay away from has begun working there. In these cases, you don't intentionally violate the court's order. Good-faith, honest accidents are not the same as intentional violations.
2.3. False allegations
Because little (if any) physical proof is necessary to prove contempt of court, it is a crime that lends itself to false accusations.
Written by James Garland of Tulelake News
PO Box 772
Tulelake, CA 96134-0772
Home Phone (530) 667-4744
Cell # (530) 708-7852
NOTE: Before posting comments click on link below
Comments
Post a Comment