In Re Abrams

Good Law
108 Cal. App. 3d 685·166 Cal. Rptr. 749·1980 Cal. App. LEXIS 2096
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 28, 1980Civ. 22591California3,814 words

Opinion

Opinion

Cologne, J.

The trial court convicted petitioner Edward H. Abrams of criminal contempt of court for disobedience of a subpoe na duces tecum directing him to appear as a witness at the trial of a civil action. The subpoena was served on petitioner’s retained attorney rather than on petitioner. Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus to vacate his conviction on the ground the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him.

Habeas corpus is a proper procedure to. challenge the adjudication. (E.g., In re Buckley (1973) 10 Cal.3d 237, 240, fn. 1 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 121 , 514 P.2d 1201 , 68 A.L.R.3d 248 ].) We have stayed execution of sentence to review the matter.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987 states a subpoena must be served personally. The pertinent language is: “Except as provided in Sections 68097.1 to 68097.8, inclusive, of the Government Code, the service of a subpoena is made by delivering a copy, or a ticket containing its substance, to the witness personally....” Section 1988 provides if a witness is concealing himself, the court may order service by breaking and entering. There are no other express statutory exceptions to the requirement of section 1987 of personal service of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.