Page 3
Court of Appeal:
No Prejudicial Error in Broad Denial of Cross-Examination
Opinion Acknowledges Due Process Violation, Says Renewal of Specific Workplace Restraining Order Presented Rare Circumstances in Which Lack of Chance to Call, Question Witnesses Was Harmless
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
Denying a defendant the opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses in a hearing on a petition to renew a workplace restraining order was harmless error where the petition was based on the same evidence as the final order in the original case and other testimony offered was irrelevant to the determination of whether the request should be granted, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held yesterday.
In an unpublished opinion, authored by Justice Thomas DeSantos, the court acknowledged that “California courts have generally found a complete denial of cross-examination to be prejudicial error” but said that “this case presents one of the rare circumstances in which we may find that [the defendant] could not have been prejudiced by the denial.”
The question arose after the State Center Community College District in Central California obtained a workplace violence restraining order against Rodolfo Brambila after the defendant showed up at the home of a professor, Hanna York, in December 2020 with a gun.
York was Brambila’s music instructor for an online course offered by Fresno City College. After she discovered him hiding in her backyard, Brambila assaulted and threatened York in front of her two young daughters before authorities, neighbors, and York’s husband intervened.
Following the assault, the district requested a restraining order under Code of Civil Procedure §527.8, which provides:
“Any employer, whose employee has suffered unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence from any individual, that can reasonably be construed to be carried out or to have been carried out at the workplace, may seek a temporary restraining order and an order after hearing on behalf of the employee and…any number of other employees at the workplace, and, if appropriate, other employees at other workplaces of the employer.”
Three-Year Order
On March 1, 2021, Fresno Superior Court Judge Mark Cullers granted a three-year restraining order, prohibiting Brambila from having contact with York, then-President of Fresno City College Carole Goldsmith, and other named employees who had interacted with the defendant during his time at the school.
Brambila appealed, saying he was denied the opportunity to appear at the hearing. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decree, pointing out that the defendant had not properly notified the court that he wished to attend the hearing and had failed to move to set aside the order or seek reconsideration in the trial court.
In January of last year, State Center Community College District filed a request to renew the order under subdivision (k)(1), which specifies:
“These orders may be renewed, upon the request of a party, for a duration of not more than three years, without a showing of any further violence or threats of violence since the issuance of the original order….”
York and Goldsmith submitted declarations detailing their concern that the defendant, who was then awaiting trial on charges relating to York’s assault after entering a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, would return to campus if released from custody and threaten the safety of teachers and students.
Witness Lists
Brambila, representing himself, filed a demurrer to the request for renewal and submitted witness lists, indicating that he intended to call or cross-examine York and the other named protected parties. The defendant attached letters to the filing requesting that the petitioner’s attorney produce the witnesses for the hearing.
The district objected to the filing, pointing out that a demurrer cannot be used to challenge the renewal request, and to the demand for the production of witnesses. A hearing was held on May 13 before Fresno Superior Court Commissioner Daniel J. Brickey.
At the hearing, Brambila was allowed to argue his side, pointing out that he was unable to question witnesses at the hearing on the original order because his request, filed from prison, to continue the matter was received by the court after the decree was issued. No witnesses were called, and Brickey ordered the renewal of the restraining order.
Acting Presiding Justice Jennifer R.S. Detjen and Justice Mark W. Snauffer joined in yesterday’s opinion, affirming the order.
Constitutional Rights
DeSantos noted that “Brambila contends his…due process rights were violated because he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses he requested to attend the hearing,” but the jurist responded:
“We need not decide whether Brambila properly requested the attendance of these witnesses or the validity of State Center’s objections to Brambila’s request because even if Brambila was improperly deprived of the ability to cross-examine these witnesses, such error was harmless under the circumstances of this case.”
Acknowledging that the right to cross-examination is fundamental, he remarked that “[a] complete denial of cross-examination, however, may be found to be harmless error in unusual circumstances.” Finding the present case to present such unusual circumstances, he opined:
“In our view, this case presents one of the rare circumstances in which we may find that Brambila could not have been prejudiced by the denial of the right to cross-examination. The only issue on whether to renew the restraining order was whether there was a reasonable probability that Brambila’s wrongful acts would be repeated in the future….This decision may be made based solely on the record in the original case….The findings and evidence that underlie the original restraining order, as well as that order’s validity, cannot be challenged in a proceeding to renew the restraining order.”
Same Evidence
Continuing, he wrote:
“When State Center filed its request to renew the restraining order, it submitted the same evidence it submitted in support of the original restraining order…as well as new declarations, dated January 25 and 26, from Goldsmith and York, respectively. Because Brambila cannot challenge the evidence underlying the original restraining order in this proceeding, cross-examination of the five witnesses concerning their original declarations would yield nothing relevant to the issue at hand—whether it is reasonably probable Brambila would repeat his wrongful acts.”
As to the additional declarations submitted with the request for renewal, he said:
“The fears and concerns of York and Goldsmith are irrelevant to whether Brambila will repeat his actions….
“Because the cross-examination of these witnesses would not elicit admissible evidence about the risk of Brambila repeating his violent behavior, Brambila cannot have been injured by any loss of the right to cross-examine these witnesses.”
Last summer, Brambila was sentenced to 18 years in prison on charges relating to the assault on York.
The case is State Center Community College District v. Brambila, F088370.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company