In Re Ochse

California Supreme Court Dec 19, 1951 No. Crim. 5270Published

Before: Gibson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. An accused person has a constitutional right to have a psychiatrist, employed by their attorney to assist in preparing a defense, conduct a private examination of the accused without the presence of state-appointed alienists.

Issues

Whether an accused in custody is entitled to a private psychiatric examination by a physician employed by their counsel to assist in preparing a defense.

Disposition. Order to show cause discharged; sheriff directed to allow private examination.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“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.”

“it follows that where, as here, petitioner’s attorney requires a psychiatrist’s aid in interpreting her mental condition, she is entitled to have the psychiatrist examine her in private.”

GIBSON, C. J.

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 advice 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. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 71 [53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158, 84 A.L.R. 527] ;

People

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. (C

Pen. 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

Superior Court,

37 Cal.2d 227, 235-236 [231 P.2d 26]; 8 Wig-

In Re Ochse

AI Brief

GIBSON, C. J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief