People v. Zapata, 443 P.3d 78

Zapata's ex-girlfriend told him her convenience-store employer had sexually harassed and touched her; Zapata was angry and texted her "Don't be there" about 30 minutes before the incident.
Zapata and Jose Murillo traveled together to the store; Murillo entered, stabbed the store owner's son, and later suffered permanent brain injury; Zapata stood on the opposite side of the counter and fled during the attack.
Murillo pleaded guilty in a separate case and testified at Zapata's trial; Murillo had undergone competency evaluations in his own case and initially raised competency but later withdrew that claim.
Prosecutors charged Zapata with attempted second-degree murder and first-degree assault; the jury convicted him of attempted second-degree murder and first-degree assault.
Pretrial, Zapata sought production (and in camera review) of Murillo's competency evaluation reports; the trial court denied disclosure citing psychologist-patient privilege and statutory limits on waiver.
Zapata also challenged admission of prior controlling/threatening behavior toward his ex-girlfriend as res gestae; the court admitted the evidence but the court of appeals found any error harmless and affirmed the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether competency-evaluation reports (Murillo) must be disclosed or reviewed in camera	Prosecution: privilege waived only in Murillo's case; negligible probative material; no Brady violation	Zapata: reports may contain exculpatory/inconsistent statements; Crim. P.16/Brady and confrontation/due process require disclosure or in camera review	Court: privilege (psychologist-patient) applies; statutory waiver under §16-8.5-104 does not extend to third-party cases; no abuse of discretion denying disclosure or in camera review
Whether admission of prior controlling/threatening conduct as res gestae was improper and prejudicial	Prosecution: prior behavior shows motive, intent, and context for attending store and attacking clerk	Zapata: prior-act evidence impermissibly inflames jury and attacks character	Court: even if admission was error, it was harmless given strong evidence tying Zapata to the planned attack and his conduct during the incident; conviction affirmed

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
Hendricks v. People, 10 P.3d 1231 (Colo. 2000) (statutory waiver of competency-evaluation confidentiality involves physician/psychologist-patient privilege)
People v. Ullery, 984 P.2d 586 (Colo. 1999) (same statutory-scheme interpretation re: psychologist/physician-patient privileges)
People v. Wittrein, 221 P.3d 1076 (Colo. 2009) (privileged mental-health records generally not discoverable absent particularized showing)
Yusem v. People, 210 P.3d 458 (Colo. 2009) (harmless-error standard: reversal requires reasonable probability the error contributed to conviction)