Court Opinion

ID: 9732010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:04:41.500791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:22.487608
License: Public Domain

COMPTON, J.
I concur in the holding that the defendant in this case failed to make a sufficient showing of adverse interest so as to entitle him to a second challenge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. How*54ever, I would place the denial of the petition for writ of mandate on the broader grounds which I set forth in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Fraijo v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.App.3d 222 [109 Cal.Rptr. 909].
As noted in Mr. Justice Fleming’s opinion, petitioner filed “merely a form declaration asserting prejudice.” In other words, petitioner’s challenge to Judge Arabian was purely peremptory in nature.
In Austin v. Lambert, 11 Cal.2d 73 [77 P.2d 849, 115 A.L.R. 849], the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms declared that a peremptory challenge to a judge is unconstitutional and an unlawful interference with the process of the court. Johnson v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.2d 693 [329 P.2d 5], contrary to the dicta in Pappa, which is quoted by Justice Fleming, did not hold that Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 relieves a party of the necessity of specifying the facts relied upon as a basis of disqualification. Johnson held only that the procedure for disqualifying a judge on the basis of an affidavit and without a hearing on the truth of the matters contained in the affidavit was constitutional and thus saved the present statute from the condemnation of Austin.
Here the affidavit set forth no legally cognizable facts which could in any way constitute a basis for calling into question Judge Arabian’s impartiality. In fact, it set forth no facts at all. Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 requires an affidavit. This document is a “non-affidavit.”
A petition for a rehearing was denied September 3, 1974, and petitioner’s application for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied October 17, 1974.