In In re Marriage of Carlsson (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 281, the trial court repeatedly warned the parties that the case was taking too long and that a mistrial could result. It set a deadline of 4:30 p.m. on the third day of trial. (Id. at pp. 286-288.) When that time arrived, even though the husband's case-in-chief was still in progress, it announced, "This trial has ended" and left the bench. (Id. at pp. 288-289.) It then ruled against the husband on almost every issue. (Id. at p. 290.) The appellate court held: "By abandoning the trial in the middle of the husband's case-in-chief without giving him an opportunity to complete the presentation of evidence or offer rebuttal evidence, the trial court denied him his constitutional right to due process and a fair trial." (In re Marriage of Carlsson, supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 290.) "Unquestionably, the trial court has the power to rule on the admissibility of evidence, exclude proffered evidence that is deemed to be irrelevant, prejudicial or cumulative and expedite proceedings which, in the court's view, are dragging on too long without significantly aiding the trier of fact. If the court errs in any of these respects, its rulings may be reviewed by a higher court and, if prejudicial, the judgment will be reversed. That kind of review is unavailable here, however, because the court's summary termination of the trial infringed on the husband's fundamental right to a full and fair hearing." (Id. at p. 291.) The court also held that the error was reversible per se. (Ibid.)