People v. Superior Court (Campbell)

California Court of Appeal Sep 17, 1975 No. Docket Nos. 46415, 27098, 27020Published

Before: Kingsley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant in a Penal Code section 1368 competency proceeding has a constitutional right to a jury trial that cannot be waived by counsel over the defendant's objection, and that the attorney-client privilege protects reports from court-appointed psychiatrists. Furthermore, the court ruled that the trial court applied an incorrect standard of proof and failed to distinguish between the capacity to cooperate and actual cooperation.

Issues

Whether a defendant has a constitutional right to a jury trial in a Penal Code section 1368 competency proceeding.
Whether the attorney-client privilege applies to reports from court-appointed psychiatrists in a competency proceeding.
Whether the trial court applied the correct standard of proof under Penal Code section 1369.
Whether the test for competency under section 1368 is the capacity to cooperate or actual cooperation.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Being a constitutional right, it could not be waived by counsel over defendant’s objection.”

“While the psychiatrist-patient privilege was not applicable, since defendant’s mental state was in issue, the attorney-client privilege, relied on here by defendant, was fully applicable.”

“But the test, in a section 1368 proceeding, is competency to cooperate, not cooperation.”

Opinion

KINGSLEY, J.

These three cases all involve the validity of an order of the trial court, in a proceeding under section 1368 of the Penal Code, to determine the competency of defendant Campbell to stand trial on a charge of armed robbery. The right of a defendant, committed for

[462]

observation and treatment under such an order, to appeal was determined by the Supreme Court in

People

Fields

(1965) 62 Cal.2d 538 [42 Cal.Rptr. 833, 399 P.2d 369, 16 A.L.R.3d 708].

The parties stipulated that all three cases involved only a single issue and that all three could be decided on the briefs and records filed in all three cases. Accordingly, we decide the issue before us on Campbell’s appeal and the two proceedings initiated by the People'(an appeal in case No. Crim. 27098, and a petition for a writ of mandate in case No. Civ. 46415) need not be determined. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in Crim. No. 27098 and deny the petition for a writ of mandate in Civ. No. 46415.

Defendant was duly charged with armed robbery. He pled not guilty. Because of a conflict of interest on the part of the public defender, private counsel, John Lynch Henning, Esq., was appointed to represent him. That attorney moved for, and secured the appointment of, Doctors Skrdla, Coburn and Hoffman, under sections 730 and 1017 of the Evidence Code, to examine defendant. After securing their reports, Mr. Henning moved, under section 1368 of the Penal Code, for a hearing as to defendant’s competency to stand trial. Over defendant’s objection, Mr. Henning and the People waived jury trial and the hearing proceeded before Judge Leetham alone.

Over the objections of defendant that the attorney-client privilege was being violated, the court permitted Mr. Henning to call Dr. Skrdla, who testified that defendant “is incompetent under Section 1368 of the Penal Code because he is not able to rationally cooperate with counsel in presenting a defense even though he is aware of his legal status.”

People v. Superior Court (Campbell)

AI Brief

KINGSLEY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III

AI Brief