Verdin v. Super. Ct. 3/24/06 CA4/2

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: E038165

Case Date: 06/14/2006

Preview:Filed 3/24/06

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

JOSE DE JESUS VERDIN, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. E038165 (Super.Ct.No. BAF003065) OPINION

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Robert J. McIntyre, Judge. Petition denied. Gary Windom, Public Defender, and Richard V. Myers, Deputy Public Defender, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Grover Trask, District Attorney, and Elise J. Farrell and Elaina Gambera Bentley, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest.

1

Thomas J. Orloff, District Attorney (Oakland) and Jeff H. Rubin, Deputy District Attorney, for the California District Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondent. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner is charged with attempted murder, spousal battery and related crimes. Following the preliminary hearing, the defense indicated it would raise a "diminished actuality" defense pursuant to Penal Code1 section 28, and had Dr. Francisco Gomez examine petitioner and prepare a psychological evaluation. The prosecution sought discovery of materials from Dr. Gomez's report and also access to petitioner for the purpose of conducting its own mental examination. The trial court granted the prosecution's motion. This petition followed with petitioner seeking to set aside that portion of the order compelling him to submit to a prosecution mental examination. He contends that a compelled prosecution mental examination of a criminal defendant is a form of criminal discovery unauthorized by the reciprocal criminal discovery statutes. (

Download Verdin v. Super. Ct. 3/24/06 CA4/2.pdf