Opinion ID: 2581274
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Due Process Under the State Constitution

Text: Finally, the People argue that an interpretation of section 1054 precluding the trial court from ordering petitioner to grant access to a prosecution expert for a psychiatric examination would violate the People's right to due process under the California Constitution. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 29.) That provision states in pertinent part that [i]n a criminal case, the people of the State of California have the right to due process.... The People argue that included in this right is the concept of fundamental fairness as well as a meaningful opportunity to be heard and that the prosecution cannot meaningfully meet petitioner's evidence without an opportunity to examine petitioner prior to trial. While it is probable the People could more effectively challenge petitioner's anticipated mental defense if a prosecution expert were granted access to him for purposes of a mental examination, that probability does not establish that denial of such access violates article I, section 29 of the California Constitution. Should petitioner present a mental defense at trial, the People's strong interest in prosecuting criminals can often be vindicated by challenging that defense in other ways. The People can challenge the defense expert's professional qualifications and reputation, as well as his perceptions and thoroughness of preparation. The People will have access to any relevant written or recorded statements examined by Dr. Gomez, including any reports or statements of experts made in connection with the case, and including the results of physical or mental examinations, scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons which the defendant intends to offer in evidence at the trial. (§ 1054.3, subd. (a).) The People can also have their own experts review Dr. Gomez's report and interview notes and comment on petitioner's alleged mental condition. What the People cannot do, because it is neither authorized by statute nor mandated by the United States Constitution, is have the trial court order petitioner to grant their retained expert access for the purpose of a psychiatric examination. Just as our law, consonant with due process, generally prohibits the People from proving their case against a criminal defendant by using evidence compelled from the defendant's spouse, attorney, priest, or psychotherapist, so does it preclude the People from proving their case by compelling petitioner to grant a prosecution expert access for a psychiatric examination.