McGuire v. Superior Court For Los Angeles County

Citation274 Cal.App.2d 583,79 Cal.Rptr. 155
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Decision Date03 July 1969
PartiesPaul Dennis McGUIRE, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California for the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent. PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 34105.

Herbert Hafif, Claremont, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

Evelle J. Younger, Dist. Atty., for Los Angeles County, Harry Wood, Head, Appellate Division, and Maurice H. Oppenheim, Los Angeles, for real party in interest.

ALARCON, * Associate Justice pro tem.

The petitioner, Paul Dennis McGuire, has applied to this Court for a writ of prohibition to restrain the respondent superior court from enforcing a discovery order and an order appointing psychiatrists to examine the petitioner and to report their findings and medical opinions to the court.

Factual Background

The petitioner is charged with murder (Penal Code, section 187) and inflicting corporal injury (Penal Code, section 273d). A plea of not guilty was entered to these charges on April 24, 1968 'with right of additional pleas reserved.' The trial was set for June 6, 1968.

On June 6, 1968, the matter was continued for trial at the request of petitioner's counsel. At the same proceeding, the District Attorney announced his intention to make a motion for discovery concerning the reports of two psychiatrists appointed by the court on March 26, 1968 to examine the petitioner. The psychiatrists were appointed pursuant to Evidence Code, section 730. According to the March 26, 1968 minute order, the reports were ordered to be 'confidential to defendant's attorney.'

On August 5, 1968, the District Attorney advised the court that if there was to be 'any affirmative defense type of psychiatric testimony put on, that would be to (sic) the nature of either insanity, diminished capacity, or inability to understand constitutional rights and to make an intelligent waiver thereto (sic) the People would like the opportunity to have additional psychiatrists appointed on this particular point if there is going to be any such defense presented and, of course, if there is not, then the motion would not be timely.'

The court then inquired of the petitioner's counsel whether the defense intended to raise the issue of insanity at the time of the commission of the offense, present insanity, or mental illness by medical standards. Petitioner's counsel advised the court that the only issue the petitioner would raise at the trial concerning his mental state was that of diminished capacity. He would not rely on an insanity defense, nor was petitioner claiming present insanity or that he was mentally ill by medical standards.

On September 3, 1968, petitioner's counsel advised the court that the defendant would raise the issue of diminished capacity, not to show a lack of capacity to formulate a requisite mental state of the crimes charged against him but for the limited purpose of proving that the petitioner lacked the capacity to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights at the time he was interrogated by the police.

The prosecutor then moved for discovery of the reports of Dr. Abraham Wodinsky and Dr. Frederick Hacker, which earlier had been ordered to be submited only to the petitioner's counsel as confidential. 1 In addition, the prosecutor requested the appointment of psychiatrists to examine the petitioner. Hearing on the motion for discovery and for the appointment of experts was continued to October 14, 1968. On that date, the court issued the following order:

'In the matter of People versus McGuire it is my understanding that the state of the record at the present time is to the effect that the People have brought a motion to discover certain information presently in the possession of the defendant or the defendant's counsel which exists in connection with the defendant's defense of diminished capacity which has been indicated to this Court that the defendant will present at the time of trial. It's my further understanding that the defendant does not intend to present any issue as to present sanity nor does he intend to present any issue as to not guilty by reason of insanity but that the medical issue will be limited to that of diminished capacity.'

'At this time the Court will make the following order: Counsel for the defendant will submit to the District Attorney no later than November 4, 1968 the names of all witnesses defendant intends to call as well as all reports, X-rays, electroencephalograms, diagnostic studies or other documentary evidence defendant intends to introduce into evidence in support of defendant's affirmative defense of diminished capacity.

'The Court at this time, pursuant to Section 730 of the Evidence Code appoints Dr. George Abe of the Metropolitan State Hospital at Norwalk, Dr. Alvin Davis, 1245 Glendon Avenue, West Los Angeles, and Dr. A. R. Tweed, 5309 Southwestern Avenue, Los Angeles, to examine the defendant for the following purposes:

'The Court will note that prior examination contained an examination as to whether or not the defendant was mentally ill by medical standards. Therefore, one, is the defendant mentally ill by medical standards; two, did the defendant have the mental capacity to form the specific intent to commit the crimes charged; three, did the defendant have the mental capacity to deliberate; four, did the defendant have the mental capacity to premeditate; five, did the defendant have the mental capacity to harbor malice; six, did the defendant have a diminished capacity to achieve the state of mind requisite for the commission of the crime or crimes charged. The Court will authorize the doctor or doctors to have electroencephalographic studies made and perform whatever other diagnostic studies in their best judgment is (sic) required or advisable for the purpose of the examination. The Court will request that the initial examining doctor transmit to the other doctors the electroencephalographic study if one is made and any other diagnostic study which might be made in order to avoid unnecessary expense if that is practical or feasible. If not, and if in the judgment of the later examining doctors such studies are required or advisable they are authorized to have them performed. A copy of the preliminary transcript will be provided the doctors by the District Attorney's office prior to examination and the transcript should be reviewed--or read rather by each doctor before interviewing the defendant. Defendant will make arrangements directly with each doctor for an appointment and shall call each doctor no later than November 4, 1968, which is Monday.

'The doctors' reports shall be filed with the Court prior to November 18, 1968. No copies of the reports shall be sent to either counsel. The reports shall be made available to counsel only after further order of Court. The doctors shall not discuss their reports or their findings or examinations with either counsel except on further order of Court.

'Counsel for the defendant may attend the examinations as an observer only and not as a participant and only if in the opinion of the examining doctors his presence would not hinder or operate to reduce the effectiveness of the examination or hinder the establishment of the rapport frequestly (sic) necessary in a psychiatric examination.' * * *

When the trial judge finished his recitation of the foregoing order, he was requested by the prosecutor to require the psychiatrists to determine 'the ability of the defendant to understand and intelligently waive any admonishment of rights given to him under the Miranda decision; his mental capacity at the time to understand.' The request was granted in the following language:

'I'll add to the areas of examination, area number seven: Did the defendant have the requisite mental capacity to knowingly and intelligently waive any rights which he had, constitutional or statutory in nature, by reason of the Miranda decision or other cases in that area prior to making any statement to any investigating officers or other police officers.'

In response to a question raised by the District Attorney concerning the scope of the discovery order, the trial judge stated that the discovery order did not include the reports of a psychiatrist which were in the possession of petitioner's counsel, which report he did not intend to introduce into evidence although he did intend to call the psychiatrist as a witness.

Counsel for the petitioner advised the court that he would instruct his client not to communicate with the three psychiatrists appointed in response to the prosecution's request.

Petitioner's Contentions

The petitioner raises the following contentions in attacking the validity of the trial court's order:

1. The trial court's order requiring petitioner's counsel to submit to the District Attorney the names of all witnesses the petitioner intends to call in support of his affirmative defense of diminished capacity violates the petitioner's privilege against self-incrimination.

2. The trial court's order requiring petitioner's counsel to submit all reports, X-rays, electroencephalograms, diagnostic studies, or other documentary evidence he intends to introduce into evidence in support of the petitioner's affirmative defense of diminished capacity violates the petitioner's privilege against self-incrimination in that such documents contain statements of the petitioner concerning the charges.

3. The order of the court appointing psychiatrists to examine the petitioner pursuant to Evidence Code, section 730 forces the petitioner to submit to a psychiatric examination in the absence of counsel and without the advice or consent of counsel, in violation of the petitioner's right to have counsel present at all stages of the proceedings against him. In addition, the petitioner urges that requiring the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Meeks v. Superior Court (People)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 24, 1991
    ...Cal.Rptr. 672, 455 P.2d 776; Ruiz v. Superior Court (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 633, 634-635, 80 Cal.Rptr. 523; McGuire v. Superior Court (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 583, 594, 79 Cal.Rptr. 155; People v. Dugas (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 244, 51 Cal.Rptr. 478; all of which were disapproved in Prudhomme v. Su......
  • Maldonado v. the Superior Court of San Mateo County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 11, 2010
    ...1263, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 120; Posner v. Superior Court (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 928, 930, 166 Cal.Rptr. 123; McGuire v. Superior Court (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 583, 586, 590, 79 Cal.Rptr. 155, disapproved on different grounds by Prudhomme, at p. 327, fn. 11, 85 Cal.Rptr. 129, 466 P.2d 673; see also S......
  • Maldonado v. Superior Court of San Mateo County, No. A126236 (Cal. App. 5/13/2010)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 13, 2010
    ...v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1263; Posner v. Superior Court (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 928, 930; McGuire v. Superior Court (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 583, 586, 590, disapproved on different grounds by Prudhomme, at p. 327, fn. 11; see also Sandeffer v. Superior Court (1993) 18 Cal.Ap......
  • People v. Martin
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • December 21, 1971
    ...Ill.2d 301, 201 N.E.2d 455; People v. Combes (1961), 56 Cal.2d 135, 14 Cal.Rptr. 4, 363 P.2d 4; McGuire v. Superior Court, County of Los Angeles (1969), 274 Cal.App.2d 583, 79 Cal.Rptr. 155. ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT