Salazar

DISCUSSION

Although criminal contempt is available as a remedy where such conduct tends to

impede, embarrass, or obstruct the court (In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217), the

facts of contempt must be clearly established and may not be determined with the aid of

information not in the record. (Boysaw v. Superior Court (2000) 23 Cal.4th 215; In re

Littlefield (1993) 5 Cal.4th 122.)

Here, the witness’s testimony was ambiguous and readily susceptible to the

construction that it expressed confusion over the form of the question rather than a

specific intent to frustrate the orders of the court. Even if another witness had made a

similar response, there is nothing in the record to show that petitioner was aware of that

response or the court’s reaction to it. We also note that the trial court was careful to

exonerate petitioner’s counsel from any suspicion of coaching the witness into an

improper response. It seems highly unlikely that the witness would have deliberately

attempted on her own to frame a response that might suggest to the jury that other defects

existed while trying to avoid an outright violation of the court’s order.

Hence, we conclude that the evidence…