1

Filed 5/31/12

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

CALVIN LEONARD SHARP, )

)

Petitioner, )

) S190646

v. )

) Ct.App. 2/6 B222025

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF VENTURA )

COUNTY, )

) Ventura County

Respondent; ) Super. Ct. No. 2008014330)

)

THE PEOPLE, )

)

Real Party in Interest. )

____________________________________)

When the defendant in a criminal action has placed his or her mental state 

at issue through the proposed testimony of a mental health expert, Penal Code 

section 1054.3, subdivision (b)(1)1 authorizes the trial court to order the defendant 

to submit to examination by an expert retained by the prosecution. In this case, we

decide whether that statutory authority extends to a defendant who has pleaded not 

guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) and proposes to call a mental health expert on 

the issue of sanity. (See § 1027.)

We conclude section 1054.3, subdivision (b)(1) (hereafter section 

1054.3(b)(1)) does apply in these circumstances. By its terms, the statute 

 

1 All further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

authorizes an order compelling examination by a prosecution-retained expert 

“whenever . . . at any phase of the criminal action” the defense has proposed its 

own expert testimony on mental state, “[u]nless otherwise specifically addressed 

by an existing provision of law.” (Italics added.) Section 1027, which governs the 

adjudication of an NGI plea, specifically addresses the defendant‟s examination by 

court-appointed experts, but not by prosecution-retained experts, the subject of 

section 1054.3(b)(1). The exception in section 1054.3(b)(1) therefore does not 

pertain, and the statute as a whole applies.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner Calvin Leonard Sharp is charged with several felonies, including

murder with special circumstances, though the People have stated they are not 

seeking the death penalty. (§§ 187, 190.2, subd. (a)(17).) Petitioner initially 

pleaded not guilty to the offenses, as well as NGI, but later withdrew the not guilty 

plea, leaving only the issue of sanity for trial, and waived his right to a jury trial on 

that issue. The defense disclosed to the prosecution reports of four mental health 

experts who opined on petitioner‟s sanity at the time of the offenses. In addition, 

the court appointed two mental health experts under section 1027; their reports, as 

well as those of the defense experts, were introduced by stipulation at the court 

trial on sanity.

The People moved under section 1054.3(b)(1) to have petitioner examined 

by a prosecution-retained expert, and the trial court granted the motion. Petitioner 

sought a writ of mandate or prohibition from the Court of Appeal to prevent the 

compelled examination but, after issuing an order to show cause, the Court of 

Appeal denied the petition, holding section 1054.3(b)(1) applied to sanity 

proceedings.

We granted petitioner‟s petition for review and stayed both the order 

compelling an examination and the sanity trial pending further order of this court. 
3

DISCUSSION

Under the California law of reciprocal discovery in criminal cases, the 

defense must disclose before trial the witnesses it intends to call, including expert 

witnesses, as well as reports of experts, including the results of mental health 

examinations. (§ 1054.3, subd. (a)(1).) In Verdin v. Superior Court (2008) 43 

Cal.4th 1096 (Verdin), this court held that the defense‟s disclosure of a potential 

mental state defense did not justify an order compelling the defendant to submit to 

examination by a prosecution expert. We reasoned that mandatory criminal 

discovery is limited to that provided by statutory or federal constitutional authority 

(§ 1054, subd. (e)), and no such authority provided for a compelled mental health 

examination of a defendant. (Verdin, at pp. 1106-1116.) We explained that, while 

the court had no authority to create a rule allowing a compelled examination as 

discovery, “[t]he Legislature remains free, of course, to establish such a rule 

within constitutional limits.” (Id. at p. 1116, fn. 9.)

The Legislature responded to Verdin by amending section 1054.3 to add a 

new subdivision (b), expressly authorizing orders for compelled examination. 

(Stats. 2009, ch. 297, § 1.) Subdivision (b)(1) of the amended statute provides that 

“[u]nless otherwise specifically addressed by an existing provision of law, 

whenever a defendant in a criminal action . . . places in issue his or her mental 

state at any phase of the criminal action . . . through the proposed testimony of any 

mental health expert, upon timely request by the prosecution, the court may order 

that the defendant . . . submit to examination by a prosecution-retained mental 

health expert.”2

 

2

In its entirety, section 1054.3, subdivision (b) provides: “(1) Unless 

otherwise specifically addressed by an existing provision of law, whenever a 

defendant in a criminal action or a minor in a juvenile proceeding brought 

(footnote continued on next page)
4

The trial court‟s appointment of mental health experts to testify as to a 

defendant‟s sanity, after a plea of NGI, is governed by section 1027. Under that 

provision, when a defendant pleads NGI, the court selects and appoints two or, at 

the court‟s option, three psychiatrists or psychologists to examine the defendant 

and testify, if called, at a sanity trial. (§ 1027, subd. (a).) Section 1027 expressly 

does not preclude “any party to any criminal action from producing any other 

 

(footnote continued from previous page)

pursuant to a petition alleging the juvenile to be within Section 602 of the Welfare 

and Institutions Code places in issue his or her mental state at any phase of the 

criminal action or juvenile proceeding through the proposed testimony of any 

mental health expert, upon timely request by the prosecution, the court may order 

that the defendant or juvenile submit to examination by a prosecution-retained 

mental health expert. [¶] (A) The prosecution shall bear the cost of any such 

mental health expert‟s fees for examination and testimony at a criminal trial or 

juvenile court proceeding. [¶] (B) The prosecuting attorney shall submit a list of 

tests proposed to be administered by the prosecution expert to the defendant in a 

criminal action or a minor in a juvenile proceeding. At the request of the 

defendant in a criminal action or a minor in a juvenile proceeding, a hearing shall 

be held to consider any objections raised to the proposed tests before any test is 

administered. Before ordering that the defendant submit to the examination, the 

trial court must make a threshold determination that the proposed tests bear some 

reasonable relation to the mental state placed in issue by the defendant in a 

criminal action or a minor in a juvenile proceeding. For the purposes of this 

subdivision, the term „tests‟ shall include any and all assessment techniques such 

as a clinical interview or a mental status examination. [¶] (2) The purpose of this 

subdivision is to respond to Verdin v. Superior Court 43 Cal.4th 1096, which held 

that only the Legislature may authorize a court to order the appointment of a 

prosecution mental health expert when a defendant has placed his or her mental 

state at issue in a criminal case or juvenile proceeding pursuant to Section 602 of 

the Welfare and Institutions Code. Other than authorizing the court to order 

testing by prosecution-retained mental health experts in response to Verdin v. 

Superior Court, supra, it is not the intent of the Legislature to disturb, in any way, 

the remaining body of case law governing the procedural or substantive law that 

controls the administration of these tests or the admission of the results of these 

tests into evidence.”
5

expert evidence with respect to the mental status of the defendant . . . .” (Id., subd. 

(d).)

Section 1054.3(b)(1) does not expressly include or exclude a sanity trial as 

an occasion for which a compelled examination may be ordered. It applies, 

however, “whenever” the defendant places his or her mental state at issue “at any 

phase of the criminal action.” The trial on a plea of NGI is frequently referred to 

as a “phase” of the criminal action. (See, e.g., People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal.4th 

483, 494-495; People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 786; People v. Wright

(2005) 35 Cal.4th 964, 971; People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 601.) 

The broadly inclusive language of section 1054.3(b)(1)—“whenever . . . at any 

phase of the criminal action”—thus impliedly encompasses trial of the defendant‟s 

sanity after an NGI plea.

Expressly excepted from the reach of section 1054.3(b)(1) are 

circumstances in which the subject of that statute, the defendant‟s compelled 

examination by a prosecution-retained expert, is “otherwise specifically addressed 

by an existing provision of law.” We conclude the trial of an NGI plea is not such 

a circumstance. 

Section 1027 addresses only the selection and appointment of mental health 

experts by the trial court. Indeed, subdivision (d) of section 1027 disclaims for the 

section any effect on the parties’ presentation of evidence produced by their own

retained experts. In contrast, the subject of section 1054.3(b)(1) is the 

examination of the defendant by an expert selected and retained by the 

prosecution. Although the list of tests to be administered by the prosecution 

expert is subject to judicial review (§ 1054.3, subd. (b)(1)(B)), the court is given 

no role in selecting the expert, whose fees are paid by the prosecution (§ 1054.3, 

subd. (b)(1)(A)). Section 1027 does not “specifically address[]” the same subject 

as section 1054.3(b)(1).
6

To be sure, our decision in Verdin, in response to which section 

1054.3(b)(1) was enacted, concerned a proposed “diminished actuality” defense to

guilt rather than an NGI plea. (Verdin, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 1101.) But when 

the Legislature amended section 1054.3 to supply the statutory authorization for 

compelled examinations we found lacking in Verdin, it did not limit its 

authorization to guilt phase mental defenses. Rather, the Legislature broadly 

authorized examination by a prosecution-retained expert whenever the defendant 

has put his or her mental condition at issue “at any phase of the criminal action.” 

(§ 1054.3(b)(1).) Although prompted by Verdin, the 2009 amendment to section 

1054.3 does not by its terms confine its application to the circumstances of that 

case.

Nor does anything in the available legislative history of the 2009 bill 

amending section 1054.3 suggest it was intended to be limited to guilt phase 

defenses. Indeed, bill analyses by policy committees of both legislative houses 

cited People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1190 and People v. Carpenter

(1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 412-413, both involving penalty phase mental defenses, as 

pre-Verdin precedents recognizing trial courts‟ authority to order compelled 

examinations—authority the bill proposed to restore. (Assem. Com. on Public 

Safety, analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1516 (2009-2010 Reg. Sess.) as amended 

Apr. 20, 2009, p. 3; Sen. Com. on Public Safety, analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1516 

(2009-2010 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 29, 2009, p. G.)

Moreover, the same committee reports quote a passage from Estelle v. 

Smith (1981) 451 U.S. 454, 468, to the effect that federal courts have held a 

compelled “ „sanity examination‟ ” is constitutionally permitted when the 

defendant “ „asserts the insanity defense and introduces supporting psychiatric 

testimony.‟ ” (Assem. Com. on Public Safety, analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1516 

(2009-2010 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 20, 2009, p. 6; Sen. Com. on Public 
7

Safety, analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1516 (2009-2010 Reg. Sess.) as amended 

June 29, 2009, p. J.) Immediately following the quote, the reports add: “This bill 

requires courts to make the defendant available to the People when the defendant 

places his or her mental state in issue.” (Ibid.) Though most directly intended to 

assure legislators the proposed amendment was constitutional, these passages also 

suggest the amendment‟s drafters viewed the amendment as authorizing

examinations relating to NGI pleas as well as to guilt and penalty phase mental 

health defenses.

Read in isolation, section 1054.3(b)(1)‟s exception for existing statutes 

“specifically address[ing]” the same subject matter could perhaps be understood to 

encompass section 1027, since specificity is a relative quality and section 1027‟s 

provisions for court appointment of experts when a defendant pleads NGI are at 

least related to section 1054.3(b)(1)‟s authorization of orders for examination by a 

prosecution-retained expert. In context, however, such a reading is not reasonable. 

Had the Legislature meant to exclude discovery in sanity phase proceedings from 

the scope of section 1054.3(b)(1), it would not have expressly stated the statute 

applies “at any phase of the criminal action.” Together with the legislative history 

suggesting the Legislature anticipated section 1054.3(b)(1) would apply to 

proceedings other than guilt trials, and particularly to NGI trials, that express 

statutory language precludes a conclusion that the exception for existing statutes 

specifically addressing the same subject was intended as a reference to section 

1027.

Petitioner argues that section 1027‟s provision for court appointment of 

independent experts is an “effective and economical means of controverting 

defense evidence” and is “sufficient to protect the rights of the People.” Petitioner

may be correct that in general the People have less need for an examination by 

their own expert when the defendant has pleaded NGI, requiring the court to 
8

appoint its own expert examiners under section 1027, than where, as in Verdin, 

supra, 43 Cal.4th 1096, the defense proposes to present a mental health defense to 

guilt through its own retained experts. But the need for, or wisdom of, section 

1054.3(b)(1)‟s authorization for compelled examination is not the question before 

us. Even if we agreed with petitioner as to the lack of need for it, we could not 

ignore the statute‟s broadly inclusive language authorizing a compelled 

examination “whenever” the defendant has put his or her mental state at issue “at 

any phase of the criminal action” through the proposed testimony of a mental 

health expert. (§ 1054.3(b)(1).)

Sections 1027 and 1054.3(b)(1) are in no way inconsistent; indeed, when a 

defendant pleads NGI the two statutes appear to operate in a complementary 

manner. Under section 1027, court appointment of experts to evaluate the 

defendant is mandatory. Under section 1054.3(b)(1), the court may grant the 

People‟s motion to compel a further examination by a prosecution-retained expert. 

In deciding how to exercise its section 1054.3(b)(1) discretion, the trial court may 

consider the extent to which such an additional examination is needed, in light of 

any existing court appointments, to rebut the defense‟s proposed expert testimony. 

That appointments have already been made under section 1027 thus may 

influence, but does not preclude, the decision to order an examination under 

section 1054.3(b)(1).

We therefore conclude the Court of Appeal was correct in holding section 

1054.3(b)(1) authorized the trial court to order defendant examined by a 

prosecution-retained mental health expert.
9

DISPOSITION

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed. Our stays of the order

compelling examination and the sanity trial, issued on May 5, 2011, are dissolved.

WERDEGAR, J.

WE CONCUR:

CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J.

KENNARD, J.

BAXTER, J.

CHIN, J.

CORRIGAN, J.

LIU, J.
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court.

Name of Opinion Sharp v. Superior Court

__________________________________________________________________________________

Unpublished Opinion

Original Appeal

Original Proceeding

Review Granted XXX 191 Cal.App.4th 1280

Rehearing Granted

__________________________________________________________________________________

Opinion No. S190646

Date Filed: May 31, 2012

__________________________________________________________________________________

Court: Superior

County: Ventura

Judge: Kevin G. DeNoce

__________________________________________________________________________________

Counsel:

Duane A. Dammeyer and Stephen P. Lipson, Public Defenders, and Michael C. McMahon, Chief Deputy 

Public Defender, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Gregory D. Totten, District Attorney, and Lisa O. Lyytikainen, Deputy District Attorney, for Real Party in 

Interest.
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):

Michael C. McMahon

Chief Deputy Public Defender

800 S. Victoria Avenue, HOJ-207

Ventura, CA 93009

(805) 477-7114

Lisa O. Lyytikainen

Deputy District Attorney

800 S. Victoria Avenue

Ventura, CA 93009

(805) 654-2710