Saffold

People v. Saffold

Good Law
127 Cal. App. 4th 979·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 400·2005 Daily Journal DAR 3473·26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2550
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 24, 2005B174110California1,479 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

Defendant is convicted for disobeying a domestic relations order. (Pen. Code, § 273.6, subd. (a).) As evidence that he was served with notice of the order, the trial court admitted the proof of service.

Here we conclude that the admission of this evidence did not violate his right to confront witnesses under Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36 [ 158 L.Ed.2d 177 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 ],

David Bruce Saffold appeals a judgment after conviction of felony elder abuse, misdemeanor false imprisonment, and seven counts of misdemeanor disobeying a domestic relations order. (§§ 368, subd. (b)(1), 236, 237, & 273.6, subd. (a).) We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

David Saffold resided with his parents at a home on Kenwood Drive in Santa Barbara. In 1980, David, then a young adult, burned down the family home because his parents no longer would allow him to live there. Following commitments to Atascadero State Hospital and Patton State Hospital, David lived in various places. In 1996, he returned to live in a trailer in the driveway of the family home.

At times, David had behaved violently toward his parents. His father testified that “violence has been a mode of life for…

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.