6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/06/04 Afternoon Session - Jun 04, 2026

argument

6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/06/04 Afternoon Session

California Sixth District Court of Appeal 1h 17m 8 chapters transcribed 9 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What procedural steps does the court take at the start of the oral argument?

1:27

Thank you.

Charles Wilson 2:02

ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. I am Justice Charles Wilson, and welcome to the Sixth District Court of Appeal for our afternoon calendar. We have three cases on calendar this afternoon, and we will have panel changes accordingly. So let's go ahead and call our first case. It is the NRA marriage of MF and EF, MF respondent versus EF respondent. And for this case, we have Justice Lee joining us remotely. And also on this panel, we have Pro Tem Justice Chung. First, I want to acknowledge that we will be using initials to identify the parties in this case. Specifically, I'll be calling each party by respondent or appellant. But certainly, to the extent that we want to use initials, that's fine as well.

Charles Wilson 3:23

Second, I want to indicate for the record that the respondent has requested the assistance of a Spanish language interpreter. And so, Madam Clerk, has the interpreter been sworn? Okay, thank you. And so, Madam Interpreter, would you mind stating your appearance for the record, if you would mind using the podium with the microphone?

Flora Villarreal 3:50

Good afternoon, Your Honor. My name is Flora Villarreal. My oath is on file. Court certification number is 343252. Thank

Charles Wilson 3:57

you very much. All right. And to the parties, good afternoon. I see that we have the appellant on the screen. Sir, I see, and good afternoon to you. I see that you have requested to split your time today, 10 minutes for opening argument and then five minutes to respond. Is that correct?

E.F. 4:20

Yes, Your Honor.

Charles Wilson 4:21

All right. Thank you. And to the respondent, who again is in court with the assistance of the Spanish language interpreter, I see that you have reserved 15 minutes to argue. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. Thank you. And to the respondent, I just want to indicate I know that we have a Spanish language interpreter for you. I'm mindful that you speak English as well. But to the extent that we're using the Spanish language interpreter, it's best for her and for us for you to utilize Spanish when you communicate for this proceeding and the interpreter will interpret for us into English. Okay?

Unknown 5:03

Yes,

Charles Wilson 5:09

absolutely. Thank you. All right. And so with that having been indicated and addressed to the appellant, I will and you may proceed. And just so you know, we have reviewed the briefs and the record, so just be mindful we are aware of the record as well.

E.F. 5:29

Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the court, my name is E.F., the appellant, appearing in propria persona. I'm asking the court to reverse the February 27, 2025 DVRO order or at a minimum remand for a new hearing. I want to focus on three narrow issues, all grounded in the trial court's own finding and the record. First, the DVRO turned on a single August 2020 strangulation finding, but the year was missing from the DV-100 and was supplied during the hearing by the court, which makes the pivotal finding legally insufficient under substantial evidence review. Second, even assuming a past incident in the DVPA is a preventative remedy. The trial court found the only recent incident had no credible direct threats and was essentially verbal nuisance or harassment.

E.F. 6:38

So a three-year DVRO with a 300-yard stay away and firearm prohibition lacked the required current risk nexus. Third. The hearing procedure restricted meaningful cross-examination on the outcome determinative timing issue causing prejudice. Point one, substantial evidence. On the substantial evidence point, I fully understand that this court does not re-weigh credibility. I am not asking you to decide who is truthful. The issue is legal sufficiency. whether the evidence supporting the pivotal fact, the August 2020 incident, was reasonable, credible, and of solid value, rather than speculative or reconstructed. The record shows the year was not actually provided by the witness initially. In the DV-100, the date was written as August 2002, with the last digit missing.

E.F. 7:49

At the hearing, the respondent testified only that it was in August. The court then supplied the year stating, because there was a number that was cut off, I'm assuming August 2020.