Supreme Court of California

In a prosecution for attempted premeditated murder as well as various other offenses, denial of a writ of mandate challenging a finding that the trial court was authorized to order petitioner to submit himself to a prosecution expert for purposes of mental examination is reversed where: 1) mental examination is a form of discovery subject to the criminal discovery statutes; 2) nothing in the criminal discovery statutes authorizes a trial court to issue an order granting access to petitioner for mental examination by an expert retained by the prosecution; 3) an issue regarding Evidence Code section 730 was not preserved for appeal; 4) section 1054.4 was inapplicable because statements obtained in the type of mental examination sought are testimonial; 5) the Constitution does not mandate that the trial court grant access to petitioner for purposes of a mental examination by a prosecution expert on the ground that petitioner intends to raise a "diminished actuality" defense; and 6) the government's rights under due process were not violated by denying access to petitioner.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/02/2008
• Published 06/02/2008

Judges

• WERDEGAR, J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Gary Windom, Public Defender, and Richard V. Myers, Deputy Public Defender, for Petitioner., Michael P. Judge, Public Defender (Los Angeles), Albert J. Menaster and Terri Towery, Deputy Public Defenders, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner., John T. Philipsborn, San Francisco, for California Attorneys for Criminal Justice as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner., Grover Trask, District Attorney, Elise J. Farrell and Elaina Gambera Bentley, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest., Thomas J. Orloff, District Attorney (Alameda) and Jeff H. Rubin, Deputy District Attorney, for the California District Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.


• For Appellees:
  
• No appearance for Respondent.