216 Cal. App. 4th 140
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Elijah W., age 10, faced a two-count wardship petition for arson in Los Angeles County.
- Elijah's counsel sought appointment of Dr. Catherine Scarf as a defense expert under Evidence Code sections 730 and 952.
- Dr. Scarf promised to maintain confidentiality and would not report suspected child abuse or Tarasoff threats to authorities.
- The JCST panel handles competency evaluations; the juvenile court adopted a protocol restricting experts to JCST panel members.
- The court denied Elijah's motion, stating CANRA reporting would be triggered if confidential information were disclosed, and the protocol improves efficiency.
- Elijah petitioned for a writ of mandate; the court granted relief, directing the court to appoint Dr. Scarf and grant the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CANRA vs. attorney-client privilege | Elijah argues CANRA reporting duty trumps confidentiality for defense experts. | The People contend CANRA requires reporting of suspected abuse, overriding privilege. | CANRA reporting requirement does not override the defense privilege; confidentiality may prevail. |
| Extent of privileges for court-appointed defense experts | Defense must be able to consult confidentially with non-JCST experts. | JCST panel restriction is consistent with protocol and CANRA cooperation. | Communications with defense experts remain confidential; limiting to JCST panel abused discretion. |
| Tarasoff duty applicability to defense experts | Psychologists on the defense team may have duty to report threats to identifiable victims. | Tarasoff duties apply to treating therapists; defense experts' reporting duties are unclear or inapplicable. | Tarasoff duty applicability to defense experts is unresolved; no automatic disclosure required absent legislative guidance. |
| Can constitutional rights be protected by avoiding CANRA override | Protect confidentiality to ensure fair trial and effective assistance of counsel. | Public safety reporting duties may supersede privileged communications. | Statutory interpretation should avoid constitutional infirmity; CANRA should not override established confidentiality. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Roldan, 35 Cal.4th 646 (Cal. 2005) (attorney-client privilege extends to defense experts and their communications)
- People v. Lines, 13 Cal.3d 500 (Cal. 1975) (attorney can retain confidential information through necessary third-party consultants)
- Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of California, 17 Cal.3d 425 (Cal. 1976) (duty to protect identifiable victims when patient poses danger)
- Torres v. Municipal Court, 50 Cal.App.3d 778 (Cal. App. 1975) (therapist-patient privilege and duties in evaluating insanity/defense)
- People v. Blair, 36 Cal.4th 686 (Cal. 2005) (right to reasonably necessary defense services includes access to experts)
- Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court, 47 Cal.4th 725 (Cal. 2009) (courts cannot recognize implied exceptions to statutory privileges)
- In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1967) (juvenile due process and right to counsel)
- Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 (Cal. 2009) (relation to privilege discussions in confidentiality contexts)