AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Deputy District Attorney Emilio Chavez (DDA Chavez) was involved in prosecuting defendants for allegedly robbing an employee. During the investigation, DDA Chavez sought to compel pretrial statements from witnesses through subpoenas duces tecum, which he did not serve on the defendants or their attorneys as required. This led to a confrontation when the defendants and their attorneys appeared at the district attorney's office during the scheduled witness statements, resulting in DDA Chavez canceling the statements (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants: Argued that DDA Chavez violated procedural rules by not serving subpoenas on the defendants or their attorneys and attempted to prevent defense counsel from being present during witness statements. They requested sanctions including prohibiting the subpoenaed witnesses from testifying, payment of attorney fees and costs, and any other deemed appropriate sanctions (para 5).
• DDA Chavez: Limited his oral presentation to the propriety of an award of attorney fees and whether he had violated the relevant rules. He did not specifically address the possibility of being held in contempt beyond acknowledging the court's previous actions against him (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether DDA Chavez's issuance of subpoenas without serving the defendants or their attorneys violated procedural rules.
• Whether DDA Chavez's actions warranted a contempt citation and if due process was followed in issuing such a citation (paras 10-14).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order holding DDA Chavez in indirect criminal contempt due to a lack of due process (para 17).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with J. Miles Hanisee authoring and Judges Michael D. Bustamante and Roderick T. Kennedy concurring, found that DDA Chavez was held in contempt without due process. The court determined that the contempt citation was for indirect criminal contempt, which requires traditional due process procedures that were not followed. Specifically, DDA Chavez was not given fair notice that contempt was being considered before the hearing on the defendants' motion for sanctions, nor was he provided an opportunity to prepare a defense or obtain counsel. The court concluded that these procedural deficiencies necessitated reversing the contempt citation (paras 10-16).