Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Defendant Was Wrongfully Denied Opportunity to Testify
Justices Say That Although Lawyer for Woman Accused of Domestic Violence Answered in the Negative When Asked If He Had Any Witnesses, ‘No’ Did Not Mean ‘No’ Where Attorney and Client Assumed Judge Would Hear From Her
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The defendant in an action seeking an order for her to stay away from her former boyfriend was wrongfully denied the opportunity to testify even though her lawyer said after the plaintiff testified that he had no witnesses to present, Div. One of the Court of Appeal for this district held yesterday.
Justice Gregory Weingart wrote the unpublished opinion which reverses a domestic violence restraining order (“DVRO”) that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maria Puente-Porras issued in favor of the plaintiff, Manuel Jesse Quintero,
At the Sept. 4, 2024 hearing, the judge said at the outset that she would question Quintero, who was in pro per, then defendant Kandis Bowman’s lawyer, Michael Leslie, could cross-examine.
Quintero’s testimony concluded; Puente-Porras asked Leslie if he had any witnesses; he said, “no”; the judge granted the DVRO.
Defendant Protests
Bowman protested:
“I have a—I just—I didn’t get a chance to speak.”
The judge advised:
“You do not, Ma’am. Your attorney indicated there was no other witnesses. You’ll have a conversation with him, I suppose. But we are done.”
Leslie told Puente-Porras that he said “no” because he assumed she would question his client, just as she had done with Quintero. The judge responded:
“Then you thought wrong....Sir, we’re done. You made a choice.”
Bowman argued in her opening brief on appeal, signed by James Decker and Chris Jones of the Ladera Ranch firm of Decker Law:
“The focus of this appeal is not the sufficiency of the evidence; it is Bowman’s inability to present any.”
Weingart’s Opinion
In his opinion reversing the order, Weingart said:
“Both parties here sought to present live testimony. Manuel testified; Bowman filed a witness list before the hearing that included herself. Bowman and her counsel both stated they understood the court would question Bowman as it had questioned Manuel and that they did not intend to waive their right to present any evidence in opposition to the DVRO request. This belief was neither feigned nor unreasonable.”
He wrote that Puente-Porras’s “statements created the impression that at some point the court was going to hear from Bowman, and one can understand how Bowman thought the court’s preference was similarly to question her in the first instance.”
The justice went on to say:
“Compounding the prejudice from the court’s refusal to hear Bowman’s testimony is that the court did not consider her declaration in opposition to the DVRO request while nevertheless relying on the supporting affidavit filed by Manuel. We know the court relied on Manuel’s declaration because the court ordered Bowman to pay $600 for damages suffered by Manuel from the alleged abuse. The only evidence of this $600 figure is in Manuel’s sworn DVRO request; he did not testify to that amount (or any other) during the hearing.”
‘Problematic’ Hearing
The minute order recites that the examination of Quintero “at times was problematic because the counsel and petitioner were talking over each other,” noting:
“The Court admonished both to allow the other to finish.
It recounts that Leslie “was, at times, speaking in terse tone” and was admonished, and that when the judge reminded him to stick to matters of relevance, he “became upset and raised his voice and spoke over the Court.”
Weingart commented:
“The trial court, needing to manage a busy family law calendar, was understandably frustrated with how Bowman’s counsel conducted himself during the September 4, 2024 hearing.”
Nonetheless, he said, Bowmnan was entitled to “a meaningful opportunity to be heard” and that Puente-Porras abused her discretion “by not reopening the hearing to permit Bowman to present evidence in her defense, and deciding the case based solely on evidence from Manuel.”
The case is Manuel Q. v. Bowman, B341106.
Leslie on April 28 was suspended by the State Bar for failure to pass the professional responsibility examination.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company