Skip to content
Name: Maldonado v. Superior Court, SanMateo County
Case #: A126236
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 05/13/2010
Subsequent History: rev. granted 8/11/10 (S183961)

When a defendant is required to submit to an examination under Evidence Code section 1054.3, the prosecution does not have a right to contemporaneously observe the examination, but disclosure of the results to the prosecution need not be delayed until defendant presents the results of his own examination at trial. Under amended Evidence Code section 1054.3, subdivision (b)(1), whenever a defendant in a criminal action places his mental state at issue through the proposed testimony of an expert, upon request by the prosecution, the court may order that defendant submit to examination by a prosecution-retained mental health expert. In this writ of mandate brought by defendant charged with a special circumstance of murder while lying in wait, the appellate court ruled that the prosecution and its agents do not have a right to observe the examination itself from another room, but do have a right to the results of the examination pre-trial, subject to an in-camera hearing to permit defendant to seek redaction of any allegedly privileged statements.