This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A police sergeant detective was subpoenaed to testify in a criminal trial. The subpoena required him to appear on a specific date and included instructions to confirm the trial schedule. Despite being informed of the trial's continuation and his required attendance, he chose to go on vacation and failed to appear in court, leading to a contempt proceeding (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- District Court, September 1994: The trial against the accused was dismissed for reasons unrelated to the witness's failure to appear (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Witness): Argued that the subpoena did not impose a continuing obligation to appear on dates beyond the one specified and that his failure to attend was not contemptuous (paras 6-7).
- Respondent (State): Contended that the subpoena imposed a continuing duty to attend court until excused and that the witness's failure to appear was without adequate excuse (paras 6-7).
Legal Issues
- Does a subpoena impose a continuing duty on a witness to attend court until excused?
- Was the evidence sufficient to find the witness in contempt for failing to appear?
Disposition
- The court affirmed the contempt finding against the witness (para 15).
Reasons
Per Hartz J. (Apodaca CJ. and Alarid J. concurring):
The court held that a subpoena imposes a continuing duty on a witness to attend court until excused, even if the trial date is rescheduled. This interpretation aligns with practical considerations and established case law, including federal and state precedents (paras 8-14). The court rejected the appellant's argument that the subpoena was limited to the original date specified, emphasizing that such a narrow interpretation would undermine the efficiency of court proceedings (paras 6-7, 10-12).
The court found sufficient evidence to support the contempt finding, noting that the witness received adequate notice of the trial date and chose to prioritize his vacation over his legal obligation. This conduct was deemed unacceptable, particularly for a law enforcement officer (para 15).