Woods

Woods v. Superior Court

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 480·25 Cal. App. 4th 178·30 Cal. Rptr. 182·30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 182·94 Daily Journal DAR 6590
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 16, 1994D020287California3,056 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huffman, J.

In this case, we are called upon to decide if the reciprocal discovery statute, Penal Code section 1054.3, subdivision (a), requires a defendant to disclose the results of standardized tests taken by a psychologist where the psychologist was identified as a defense expert, the psychologist relied on the test results in forming an opinion and his opinion was disclosed to the district attorney. We conclude the defense must produce the results.

Factual and Procedural Background

Woods was charged with forcible rape, rape with a foreign object and robbery. His lawyer retained Dr. Raymond Murphy, a clinical psychologist, to evaluate Woods’s propensity for sexual violence. Dr. Murphy conducted a “Clinical Interview/History” and administered a variety of standardized tests including “Projective Drawings,” the “Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test,” the “Ammons Test of Intelligence,” and the “Rorschach Psychodiagnostic Test,” all of which required verbal or written responses from Woods. Dr. Murphy wrote a report evaluating Woods which was produced to the People pursuant to Penal Code section 1054.3.

The People thereafter attempted to obtain pretrial discovery of Woods’s responses…

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.