PEOPLE v. ALDO (1982)

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

The PEOPLE, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF the State of California for the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent, ALDO E., A Minor, Real Party In Interest.

Civ. 66913.

Decided: December 23, 1982

John K. Van De Kamp, Dist. Atty., of Los Angeles County. Donald J. Kaplan, Deputy Dist. Atty., Appellate Div., Suzanne Person, Deputy Dist. Atty., for petitioner. No appearance for respondent court. Wilbur F. Littlefield, Public Defender, Paul A. James, James Martin, and Gary M. Mandinach, Deputy Public Defenders, for real party in interest.

The instant petition filed in the juvenile court asks that Aldo E. be declared a ward of that court in that he committed certain sexual acts with a nine year old boy which, if perpetrated by an adult, would have constituted violations of various penal statutes. (Pen. Code, §§ 288, subd. (b); 288a, subd. (c); 647, subd. (a); 647a; and 242.) The court granted Aldo's request for an order requiring the victim to submit to a psychiatric examination based upon its conclusion that subdivision (d) of section 28 of Article 1 of the California Constitution ¹ had repealed by implication Penal Code § 1112.²

It appears manifest to us that the cited subdivision of Article 28 treats only with the admission and exclusion of known evidence and not with a trial court's limited power to authorize and control discovery. As a consequence, it does not affect the validity of Penal Code section 1112.

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the Superior Court to set aside its orders of October 29, 1982 and November 3, 1982 requiring the complaining witness to submit to a psychiatric examination. Pending the finality of this decision, the stay order previously issued shall remain in full force and effect.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.

1. This subsection of “The Victim's Bill of Rights,” recently enacted by Proposition 8 on the June 8, 1982 ballot, provides: “Right to Truth-in-Evidence. Except as provided by statute hereafter enacted by a two-thirds vote of the membership in each house of the Legislature relevant evidence shall not be excluded in any criminal proceeding, including pretrial and post conviction motions and hearings, or in any trial or hearing of a juvenile for a criminal offense, whether heard in juvenile or adult court. Nothing in this section shall affect any existing statutory rule of evidence relating to privilege or hearsay, or Evidence Code, Sections 352, 782 or 1103. Nothing in this section shall affect any existing statutory or constitutional right of the press.”

2. Penal Code section 1112 states: “The trial court shall not order any prosecuting witness, complaining witness, or any other witness, or victim in any sexual assault prosecution to submit to a psychiatric or psychological examination for the purpose of assessing his or her credibility.”

THE COURT *: FN* Before ROTH, P.J., and BEACH and GATES, JJ.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network