Maldonado v. Superior Court, 140 Cal. Rptr. 3d 113

Background

Maldonado charged with first-degree murder and lying-in-wait; special circumstance allegation §190.2(a)(15).
Defense disclosed mental-state evidence and expert reports (neurocognitive deficits) under reciprocal discovery §1054.3(a)(1).
Prosecution obtained order under Evidence Code §730 for court-ordered examinations by prosecution-retained experts; later §1054.3(b)(1) authorized such examinations when mental state is in issue.
Petitioner sought Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections to bar real-time prosecution observation and pretrial access to examination materials until waiver by presenting mental-state evidence.
Trial court allowed real-time prosecution observation and access to examination materials; Court of Appeal granted partial relief for additional protective measures; California Supreme Court reversed Court of Appeal and denied mandamus.
Petitioner sought mandamus to compel protective orders; the Court of Appeal’s prophylactic measures were challenged as unnecessarily broad; the Supreme Court held no general prophylactic restrictions required and directed denial of mandamus.
The decision addresses the balance between Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights and the prosecution’s need for timely access to examination materials for rebuttal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pretrial access to examination results is permissible under the Fifth Amendment.	Maldonado argues access before waiver would violate Fifth Amendment; waiver occurs only if mental-state evidence is presented at trial.	People argue waiver occurs when mental-state evidence is placed in issue; prophylactic pretrial access necessary to rebut defense.	Pretrial access is permissible; no prophylactic restrictions required.
Whether prophylactic measures (no real-time observation, in-camera review/redaction) are required to protect Fifth Amendment rights.	Maldonado seeks prohibition of real-time observation and pretrial access secured only after in-camera privilege ruling.	People contend such measures are unnecessary to protect Fifth Amendment rights beyond usable immunity.	Court of Appeal erred; such prophylactic measures not required.
Whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by prosecution access to examination materials.	Prosecution access could interfere with defense strategy and counsel’s preparation.	Examinations are not confidential attorney-client consultations; defense counsel must be notified and can participate.	No Sixth Amendment violation; examinations are to rebut anticipated mental-health defense and do not bar prosecution access.
Whether extraordinary-writ mandamus is proper to review the trial court’s examination order.	Mandamus is appropriate to address novel, legally important discovery issues.	Discretionary review of discovery orders is generally disfavored and premature.	Mandamus review appropriate; Court of Appeal erred; Supreme Court denies mandamus and restores standard framework.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Carpenter, 15 Cal.4th 312 (Cal. 1997) ( Fifth Amendment waiver and rebuttal evidence in mental-state cases)
Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1987) (waiver and use-immunity considerations in mental-state contexts)
Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (U.S. 2003) ( Fifth Amendment does not prohibit compelled speech; use in criminal case is prohibited without waiver)
Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (U.S. 1972) (immunity sufficient to prevent use of compelled testimony; no transactional immunity required)
Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1970) (accelerated pretrial discovery does not violate Fifth Amendment; relates to alibi notice)
Izazaga v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.3d 356 (Cal. 1991) (accelerated timing analysis for discovery; distinguishes between notes/witness statements and privileged communications)
Verdin v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.4th 1096 (Cal. 2008) (ownership of reciprocal discovery and scope under §1054.3 prior to amendments)
Pokovich, 39 Cal.4th 1240 (Cal. 2006) (impeachment and Fifth Amendment considerations for defendant-testimony and prior exam statements)
Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981) (penalty-phase examinations and Fifth Amendment considerations)