California Court of Appeal

In defendant's petition for a writ of mandate challenging denial of seven of his protective orders, relating to court-ordered examinations arising from his notification of his intent to introduce evidence of neurocognitive deficits he purportedly suffers in his prosecution for murder, a peremptory writ is granted permitting the examinations to proceed but directing the trial court to delay disclosure of those portions of the examination reports containing statements by defendant until he has an opportunity to challenge disclosure of materials potentially still subject to privilege, despite the fact that defendant has placed his mental state in issue. Defendant must be given an opportunity to assert a claim of privilege before disclosure to the prosecution. Defendant's contention that disclosure of the examination results and supporting data must be deferred until defense evidence on his mental state is adduced at trial is rejected. Lastly, there is no error in the trial court's consideration of prosecution recommendations in the court's appointment of experts to examine defendant.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/13/2010
• Published 05/13/2010

Judges

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Paul F. DeMeester for Petitioner., Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Stan Helfman, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Brent W. Wilner, Deputy Attorney General, for Real Party in Interest.