Ex parte Ochse
| Decision Date | 19 December 1951 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5270 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ex parte OCHSE. |
Harold R. Haberkorn, Theo. G. Krumm, San Bernardino, for petitioner.
Lowell E. Lathrop, dist. Atty., County of San Bernardino, Daniel J. Cowett, Deputy Atty., San Bernardino, for respondent.
Petitioner is confined in the San Bernardino County Jail charged by information with the crimes of murder and assault with intent to murder. She entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, and her attorneys employed a licensed physician, who is a psychiatrist, to examine her and to advise them with respect to her sanity. At the direction of petitioner's attorneys, the psychiatrist went to the jail to make the examination, but the sheriff refused to permit him to examine her in private and informed him that he could conduct the examination only in the presence of alienists appointed by the court. Petitioner refused, upon advaice of counsel, to submit to examination by court-appointed psychiatrists.
In a proceeding for habeas corpus, the superior court made an order permitting any alienist selected by petitioner to examine her, but only 'in conjunction with' the psychiatrists appointed by the court. Thereafter application was made to this court for a writ of habeas corpus, and we ordered the sheriff to show cause why an alienist chosen by petitioner's attorneys should not be permitted to examine her in private.
A fundamental part of the constitutional right of an accused to be represented by counsel is that his attorney must be afforded reasonable opportunity to prepare for trial. Powell v. State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 71, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158; People v. Sarazzawski, 27 Cal.2d 7, 17, 161 P.2d 934. To make that right effective, counsel is obviously entitled to the aid of such expert assistance as he may need in determining the sanity of his client and in preparing the defense. Cf. Penal Code, § 1027. Adequate legal representation, of course, requires a full disclosure of the facts to counsel, and in order to assure that a client may safely reveal all the facts of his case to his attorney, the law has long recognized the need for secrecy with respect to communications between them. See City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.2d 227, 231 P.2d 26; 8 Wigmore on Evidence (3rd ed., 1940) 550 et seq. In applying this principle it has been held that an accused person in custody of the law is entitled to consult with his attorney in private, without the presence of the sheriff or other representatives of the state. In re Qualls, 58 Cal.App.2d 330, 136 P.2d 341; In re Snyder, 62 Cal.App. 697, 217 P. 777; In re Rider, 50 Cal.App. 797, 195 P. 965; State v. Davis, 9 Okl.Cr. 94, 130 P. 962, 963-964; Turner v. State, 91 Tex.Cr.R. 627, 241 S.W. 162, 163-164, 23 A.L.R. 1378, see 14 Am.Jur. 885-886. For the same basic reasons of policy, the client is accorded a privilege against disclosure of private conversations with his attorney. Code Civ.Proc. § 1881, subd. 2; Verdelli v. Gray's Harbor etc. Co., 115 Cal. 517, 525-526, 47 P. 364, 778; see 8 Wigmore on Evidence (3rd ed., 1940) 550 et seq.
The right of private consultation has been held to include interviews through an interpreter chosen by accused...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spencer, In re
...time prevented, pursuant to the lawyer-client privilege, the disclosure of any of his statements to the psychiatrist. (In re Ochse (1961) 38 Cal.2d 230, 238 P.2d 561.) We disposed of this contention on appeal. (People v. Spencer, supra, 60 Cal.2d 64, 83, 31 Cal.Rptr. 782, 383 P.2d 134.) Pet......
-
Brubaker v. Dickson
...of one of appellant's present counsel recited conversation with trial counsel to this effect. Present counsel cite In re Ochse, 38 Cal.2d 230, 238 P. 2d 561 (1951), as establishing that under California law such communications are within the attorney-client privilege and as such are protect......
-
People v. Miller
...and presentation of his defense (Cornell v. Superior Court, 52 Cal.2d 99, 102, 338 P.2d 447, 72 A.L.R.2d 1116; In re Ochse, 38 Cal.2d 230, 231, 238 P.2d 561; People v. Sarazzawski, 27 Cal.2d 7, 17, 161 P.2d 934; People v. Boyden, 116 Cal.App.2d 278, 284-285, 253 P.2d 773; People v. Zammora,......
-
People v. Mattson
...afforded time and opportunity for investigation and consultation with defendant in the preparation of the defense (In re Ochse (1951), 38 Cal.2d 230, 231 (1), 238 P.2d 561; People v. Sarazzawski (1945), 27 Cal.2d 7, 17 (14), 161 P.2d 934; In re Qualls (1943), 58 Cal.App.2d 330, 136 P.2d 341......
-
Other pretrial motions
...68 Cal.2d 397—Counsel is entitled to the aid of such expert assistance which counsel deems useful to the defense. In re Ochse (1951) 38 Cal.2d 230. §6:50.2 U.S. Supreme Court Authority The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right to a court-appointed expert for the defense in Ake v. Oklahoma (......