Babalola v. Superior Court
192 Cal. App. 4th 948
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Code §136.2(a) authorizes criminal protective orders upon a good cause belief of harm or intimidation of a victim or witness.
- Stone narrowed §136.2 to protect the integrity of ongoing criminal proceedings; good cause required threat to proceedings or participation.
- AB 1771 (2008) added §136.2(h) allowing consideration of the offense's underlying nature in DV cases; broadened domestic violence protections.
- Babalola was charged with aggravated assaults (non-DV); protective order issued ex parte restricting contact and surrender of firearms.
- Defense argued no post-charge intimidation evidence; court relied on preliminary hearing testimony and proximity of victims' and defendant's residences.
- Superior Court vacated the protective order after mandamus proceedings; petitionunciation moot, but issues raised as public significance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May §136.2 orders be based on the underlying offense in non-DV cases? | Babalola argues no basis without intimidation evidence post-charge. | People contend underlying charges may establish good cause. | Yes, underlying charges can support good cause in non-DV cases only if intimidation is shown. |
| Did Stone's narrow interpretation apply to non-DV cases and require post-charge intimidation? | Babalola relies on Stone to require intimidation after charges. | People rely on Stone’s rationale but §136.2(h) later expanded DV context. | Stone’s interpretation binds; non-DV protective orders require evidence of intimidation related to proceedings. |
| Was there good cause to issue the protective order based on the underlying charges and circumstances? | Babalola contends lack of intimidation evidence; proximity alone insufficient. | People point to nature of offenses and potential danger to victims. | No; insufficient evidence of intimidation or likelihood of harm to necessitate the order in a non-DV case. |
| Did the court provide proper notice and opportunity to present evidence for the emergency order? | Babalola asserts inadequate notice and chance to contest. | People maintain due process was satisfied given emergency ex parte context. | Procedural concerns noted; due process requires notice and an opportunity to respond, especially where hearsay may be involved. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Stone, 123 Cal.App.4th 153 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (protective orders under §136.2 must relate to interference with proceedings; not based on prior harms alone)
- People v. Ponce, 173 Cal.App.4th 378 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (post-charge intimidation required for §136.2 orders in non-DV cases)
- Whitman v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.3d 1063 (Cal. Supreme Court 1991) (hearsay admissibility at preliminary hearings; context for evidence in §136.2 decisions)
- Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (due process requires notice and opportunity to respond)
- Nakamura v. Parker, 156 Cal.App.4th 327 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (DVPA considerations and protective orders context)