Hines

In our recent opinion in Sandeffer v. Superior Court (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 672 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 261 ] we had occasion to construe certain aspects of Penal Code section 1054.3, the new criminal discovery statute resulting from the approval in 1990 of Proposition 115. The trial court in that case had ordered the defense to produce certain documents pertaining to a defense expert witness, including not only the witness’s reports but also his “notes.” While striking the order on the ground of prematurity (the decision to call the expert as a witness had not as yet been made) we added an advisory comment about the requirement of production of “notes.” Observing the specific provisions of the statute, we suggested that “an order requiring the expert to produce his ‘notes’ in most circumstances would go beyond the specification of discoverable items set forth in the statute.” (Sandeffer v. Superior Court, supra, 18 Cal.App.4th at p. 679 .)

As perhaps could have been predicted, our “dictumish” advice soon led to a trial court order structured to test it. The order in this case required that the defendant provide expert witness discovery including:

The enumeration of…