Bobb

Carolyn Bobb appeals from the superior court’s judgment denying her petition for writ of certiorari and affirming respondent court’s judgment of contempt.

The facts of this case are not in dispute. On January 26, 1982, appellant, an attorney, was called and appeared for jury duty on a criminal case in municipal court. When appellant was called to take her place in the jury box as a prospective juror the following voir dire examination was conducted by the trial judge:

Immediately thereafter appellant was taken to a holding facility to await transfer to the county jail. After spending approximately 15 minutes at the holding facility, appellant was ordered released on her own recognizance on condition that she return at 3 p.m. that afternoon for sentencing by respondent court.

At the sentencing hearing appellant requested a continuance in order to obtain counsel and to do further research. The court denied the continuance. After appellant further explained her objection to the voir dire questioning, the court acknowledged her sincerity but repeated its conviction that the questions posed were valid and that refusal to answer them constituted contempt of court. Appellant…

I concur.

Justice Miller has in my view reached the right result for the wrong reason. I think it unnecessary to reach the constitutional issue, 1 for on the unique facts of *868 this case I would not sustain the judgment even if persuaded the court’s questioning were constitutionally valid. Moreover, I believe the most significant issue raised by this case relates more to the proper treatment of jurors than the rights of women.

Our first responsibility is simply to ascertain whether there was sufficient evidence of the jurisdictional facts necessary to sustain the judgment and order. (In re Buckley (1973) 10 Cal.3d 237, 247 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 121 , 514 P.2d 1201 ], quoting In re Ciraolo (1969) 70 Cal.2d 389, 394 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 865 , 450 P.2d 241 ]; see also Arthur v. Superior Court (1965) 62 Cal.2d 404, 409-410 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 441 , 398 P.2d 777 ]; and In re Mason (1924) 69 Cal.App. 598, 603-605 [ 232 P. 157 ].) In making this determination we must keep in mind that the summary contempt power is the ultimate judicial weapon and must therefore be employed with great prudence and caution, lest it be improperly used to stifle freedom of thought and speech. (In re Buckley, supra, at p.…

I respectfully dissent.

At oral argument, counsel for appellant conceded that, if the questions were proper, then she would not challenge the trial judge’s right to hold that appellant’s refusal to answer was an act of contempt. Therefore, in my view, the only issue before this court is whether appellant had the right to refuse to answer the questions “Do you have a husband?” and “What is [his] occupation?”

I cannot accept appellant’s assertion that her refusal to answer such innocuous questions is a matter of constitutional dimension. Both as a trial lawyer and a trial judge, I have asked similar questions of prospective jurors on many occasions, blissfully unaware of the sinister nature of the inference now ascribed to them by appellant. Clearly, it is a proper area of inquiry, generally addressed to both male and female members of a venire, but, until I read Justice Miller’s opinion, I was unaware of any requirement that such questions be put to each or to none. It seems to me that the matter of one’s marital status and occupation is a common subject of inquiry and discussion at any gathering of two or more persons, in a variety of settings, including (but certainly not…

Ralph R. Kuchler, County Counsel, and W. Allen Bidwell, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

OPINION

MILLER, J.

Carolyn Bobb appeals from the superior court's judgment denying her petition for writ of certiorari and affirming respondent court's judgment of contempt.

The facts of this case are not in dispute. On January 26, 1982, appellant, an attorney, was called and appeared for jury duty on a criminal case in municipal court. When appellant was called to take her place in the jury box as a prospective juror the following voir dire examination was conducted by the trial judge:

"THE COURT: Miss Bobb, what is your occupation?

"MISS BOBB: I'm an attorney.

"THE COURT: And in your practice do you practice criminal law as well as civil law?

"MISS BOBB: No, I practice entirely bankruptcy law.

"THE COURT: All right. Is there a Mr. Bobb?

"MISS BOBB: I have some difficulty with that question because I've noticed only the women have been asked to answer that.

"THE COURT: Yes, I know. Do you have a Mr. Bobb — is there a Mr. Bobb?

"MISS BOBB: Are you going to pool [ sic ] the men to see if they care to disclose —

"THE COURT: No, I'm just going to ask…