Title: P. v. Jones

State: california

Issuer: California Supreme Court

Document:

Filed 4/30/03 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
THE PEOPLE, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
) 
 
 
) 
S046117 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
ERNEST DWAYNE JONES, 
) 
 
) 
Los Angeles County 
 
Defendant and Appellant. 
) 
Super.Ct.No. BA063825 
_______________________________________) 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
MODIFICATION OF OPINION 
 
 
The opinion herein, filed March 17, 2003, appearing at 29 Cal.4th 1229, is 
modified as follows: 
 
Add the following footnote to the end of the citation following the second 
sentence of the first full paragraph on page 1264.   
 
“Defendant’s reliance on Andrade v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 
1609 (Andrade) and Rodriguez v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1260 
(Rodriguez) is misplaced.  Andrade and Rodriguez dealt with pretrial discovery 
orders, whereas the order here was made in the midst of the penalty phase of the 
trial.  In Rodriguez, the trial court ordered the defendant to provide the prosecutor 
with pretrial discovery, pursuant to Penal Code section 1054 et seq., of all guilt 
phase material.  In response, the defendant supplied the prosecutor with the report 
of a psychologist he intended to call.  However, the defendant deleted from the 
report remarks that he had made to the psychologist regarding the charged 
offenses.  When the prosecutor moved to compel production of the unredacted 
 
2
report, the trial court ruled that the full report should be disclosed if the defendant 
intended to call the psychologist as a witness.  The Court of Appeal issued a writ 
of mandate directing the superior court to vacate its order.  It held that the 
defendant’s statement to the psychologist was a privileged communication under 
the attorney-client privilege and that such privileged information “is not subject to 
disclosure at the time the witness is designated pursuant to section 1054.3.”  
(Rodriguez, at p. 1269.)  Andrade, another pretrial discovery case, followed 
Rodriguez, finding its reasoning persuasive.  (Andrade, at p. 1614.)  As the order 
in this case, unlike the orders in Andrade and Rodriguez, was not made prior to 
defendant’s trial, the pretrial discovery rules set out in section 1054.3 are not 
implicated. 
 
This modification does not affect the judgment.