The Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, published a ruling June 5 that clarifies a judge’s role when a party does not have representation.
The ruling stems from a domestic violence case between a man and a woman who had met at a church. Follow Our Courts is not naming the litigants because this case involves domestic violence.
The woman said she began a relationship with the man, but ended it after he recorded himself sexually assaulting her when she was trying to go to a church service in January 2021.
She said she believed the January 2021 assault was reported on her April 3, 2023, petition for a restraining order, but it was absent. Instead, the petition recounted an incident on Feb. 12, 2023, after she ended the relationship. The woman said that the man came up to her in their church’s parking lot, and attempted to take her somewhere they could talk. When she refused, he blocked her car, she said. He drove her to his house. She said he grabbed her, carried her into the house, and tried to sexually assault her again. She did not claim a sexual assault actually occurred.
The man claimed their sexual relationship was consensual, but ended August 2022. He said that she entered his house voluntarily on Feb. 12, 2023, that she took off her own clothes, and that he asked her to leave. A neighbor testified that he saw the woman arrive by herself, and leave 10 minutes later.
A temporary restraining order was granted against the man on April 7, 2023. The order prohibited him from owning weapons, and from visiting the church they met at. He claimed he did not own any weapons. She claimed he did. A background check found that he had a registered firearm. He later said he had sold it to a dealer, then said he had never owned it.
During the hearing for the domestic violence restraining order, the woman did not have representation. San Bernardino Superior Temporary Judge Shannon Suber examined the woman herself, a role normally taken by counsel.
“You stated that an incident occurred on March 27th, 2023, that caused you to file for a domestic violence restraining order. Can you tell the Court specifically what happened during that incident that caused you to file for a restraining order?” Suber asked.
“And so what happened on (Super Bowl Sunday, February 2023) that caused you to file the request?” Suber asked.
Suber granted the restraining order after finding that the man owned the gun and visited their church, in violation of the temporary restraining order.
The man appealed. He argued that Suber compromised her neutrality by asking the woman questions.
The Court of Appeal disagreed. Suber asked general, open-ended and neutral questions, the Court of Appeal found.
“These questions elicited (the woman’s) testimony about the two incidents of sexual abuse. They were not questions that were in some way advocacy for a side. The trial court’s remaining questions sought details and clarifications from (the woman) and were equally unobjectionable. We conclude the trial court acted appropriately in conducting this questioning, restricting itself to eliciting material facts with general questions and clarifying confusing and incomplete testimony,” the appellate ruling said.
The man also argued that he was deprived of due process because Suber admonished his counsel. Suber directed the counsel how to examine the man.
“So a lot of the questions that you ask are very leading because they suggest a response. When people testify it’s helpful to know what they actually saw or witnessed, so he hasn’t testified as to Ms. Bailey’s demeanor or affect at any point,” Suber said.
“The more open-ended answers that he’s provided as he’s about to do are more helpful so the Court can get more information from his perspective about what he saw, heard, and so forth,” Suber said.
The Court of Appeal found that Suber’s comments were sound advice.
“The comments did not limit (the man)’s ability to present evidence, and, if anything, assisted him in presenting his case. Since the trial court was the fact finder, there was no danger that the court’s comments would influence jurors,” the ruling said.
Case information
Frank Bazadier argued for the man.
San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. FAMSB2301122
Appellate Case No. E081558
