Bill Text: CA AB1516 | 2009-2010 | Regular Session | Enrolled

NOTE: There are more recent revisions of this legislation. Read Latest Draft

---

Bill Title: Criminal procedure: discovery.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)

Status: (Passed) 2009-10-11 - Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 297, Statutes of 2009. [AB1516 Detail]

Download: California-2009-AB1516-Enrolled.html

---

BILL NUMBER: AB 1516	ENROLLED
	BILL TEXT

	PASSED THE SENATE  AUGUST 31, 2009
	PASSED THE ASSEMBLY  SEPTEMBER 2, 2009
	AMENDED IN SENATE  JULY 16, 2009
	AMENDED IN SENATE  JUNE 29, 2009
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  APRIL 20, 2009

INTRODUCED BY   Assembly Member Lieu

                        FEBRUARY 27, 2009

   An act to amend Section 1054.3 of the Penal Code, relating to
criminal procedure.


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   AB 1516, Lieu. Criminal procedure: discovery.
   Existing law provides that no discovery shall occur in criminal
cases except as provided by statute or as mandated by the
Constitution of the United States. Under existing law, a defendant
and his or her attorney are required to disclose to the prosecuting
attorney any reports or statements of experts made in connection with
the case, including the results of physical or mental examinations,
scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons which the defendant
intends to offer in evidence at the trial.
   This bill would allow the court to order a defendant in a criminal
action or a minor in a juvenile delinquency proceeding to submit to
examination by a prosecution-retained mental health expert whenever a
defendant or minor, as specified, 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. The bill
would require the prosecuting attorney to submit a list of the tests
he or she proposes to have a prosecution-retained expert conduct on
the defendant or minor and would require the court, upon the request
of the defendant or minor, to hold a hearing to consider any
objections to the proposed tests. The bill would require the court to
make a threshold determination before ordering the defendant to
submit to the examination that the proposed tests bear some
reasonable relation to the mental state placed in issue by the
defendant or minor. The bill would specify that its purpose is to
respond to Verdin v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1096, as
specified.
   This bill would amend Proposition 115, an initiative statute
adopted by the voters at the June 5, 1990, statewide primary
election, which provides that its provisions may be amended by the
Legislature by a 2/3 vote of the membership of each house.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  Section 1054.3 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
   1054.3.  (a) The defendant and his or her attorney shall disclose
to the prosecuting attorney:
   (1) The names and addresses of persons, other than the defendant,
he or she intends to call as witnesses at trial, together with any
relevant written or recorded statements of those persons, or reports
of the statements of those persons, 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.
   (2) Any real evidence which the defendant intends to offer in
evidence at the trial.
   (b) (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 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.