(Super. Ct. Nos. 09F08381, 09M10257, 09M10298, 09M11031)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro ,j.
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Ted King was convicted of intimidating a witness with force or threat, battery, and violating a protective order. He was sentenced to four years in prison, plus consecutive and concurrent jail terms.
Defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting the prior protective order into evidence because (1) the order was hearsay and the official records exception (Evid. Code, § 1280) does not apply; (2) the protective order does not have res judicata effect; and (3) the protective order was unlawful.
We conclude (1) the trial court properly took judicial notice of the existence of the protective order, including the dates of the order, but it did not take judicial notice of inadmissible hearsay, and it did not admit any facts under the official records exception to the hearsay rule; (2) although the protective order did not have res judicata effect, it was nonetheless an appropriate item for judicial notice; and (3) defendant's challenge to the underlying protective order is forfeited because he did not offer any evidence to challenge the prior order in the trial court.
We will affirm the judgment.
Defendant was separated from his wife, Laurie Cloninger. One evening Laurie walked to the Curtis Park Market with a friend named Chester. Defendant went to the front door of the store and began yelling at Laurie. Defendant yelled, "Don't ever look at me. You think I'm playin'. I'm serious. Don't look at me. Don't look at me." Defendant left and Laurie called 911.
The next month, Chester went inside the same store while Laurie waited for him in her parked car. Defendant approached the driver's side door, but Laurie locked the doors and drove away. She drove around the block, picked up defendant's sister and then went to find Chester. When they saw defendant, Laurie stopped her car. Defendant asked Laurie what they were going to do about their marriage. Defendant's sister called 911 and flagged down a passing patrol car.
More than a week later, defendant grabbed his sister by her collar, pressed her throat and yelled, "Why did you call the police on me? Don't you ever call the police on me. Are you crazy, bitch? Don't ever call the police on me." Defendant threw his sister down on the grass and her glasses flew off her face. She suffered a bruise on her arm and a scratch on her ankle.
Defendant was charged and the matter proceeded to trial. Before jury selection commenced, the prosecutor asked the trial court to take judicial notice of a prior protective order issued in a 2008 misdemeanor case. The protective order was on a Judicial Council form entitled "Protective Order in Criminal Proceeding." A box was checked for "Order Post-Trial Probation Condition." The order had issued in case No. 08M11498 on February 19, 2009, and it expires on February 19, 2012. The order prohibited defendant from having personal, telephonic, or written contact with Laurie; prevented him from having contact with Laurie through a third party, except an attorney of record; prohibited him from ...