Sandeffer

Sandeffer v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO CTY.

Bad Law
18 Cal. App. 4th 672·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 906·22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 261·93 Daily Journal DAR 11309·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6678
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 31, 1993D019036California1,862 words

Opinion

Opinion

Froehlich, J.

Penal Code section 1054.3 requires defense counsel to disclose to the prosecuting attorney the names of expert witnesses who are to be called to testify at trial, and further requires the production of reports or statements prepared by the experts in connection with the case. This petition raises the question whether a trial judge, when convinced that a defense attorney plans to call an expert witness, can issue a discovery order requiring the production of reports and other materials prepared by the witness, notwithstanding the defense attorney’s protestation that a decision has not as yet been made to call the witness. We conclude the trial judge does not have this power.

Factual and Procedural Background

On October 9, 1992, the People filed an information charging Tiffany Nicole Sandeffer with murdering her newborn baby. Set for jury trial on January 19, 1993, the case was continued three times and ultimately calendared for trial on July 27, 1993.

On February 8, with a March 23 trial then on the horizon, the prosecutor filed a motion for discovery asserting defense counsel had failed to provide section 1054.3 disclosures despite three informal requests by the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.