California Codes

Cal. Penal Code § 1054.3 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)The defendant and his or her attorney shall disclose to the prosecuting attorney:

(1)The names and addresses of persons, other than the defendant, he or she intends to call as witnesses at trial, together with any relevant written or recorded statements of those persons, or reports of the statements of those persons, including any reports or statements of experts made in connection with the case, and including the results of physical or mental examinations, scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons which the defendant intends to offer in evidence at the trial.

(2)Any real evidence which the defendant intends to offer in evidence at the trial.

(b)(1)Unless otherwise specifically addressed by an existing provision of law, whenever a defendant in a criminal action or a minor in a juvenile proceeding brought pursuant to a petition alleging the juvenile to be within Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code places in issue his or her mental state at any phase of the criminal action or juvenile proceeding through the proposed testimony of any mental health expert, upon timely request by the prosecution, the court may order that the defendant or juvenile submit to examination by a prosecution-retained mental health expert.

(A)The prosecution shall bear the cost of any such mental health expert’s fees for examination and testimony at a criminal trial or juvenile court proceeding.

(B)The prosecuting attorney shall submit a list of tests proposed to be administered by the prosecution expert to the defendant in a criminal action or a minor in a juvenile proceeding. At the request of the defendant in a criminal action or a minor in a juvenile proceeding, a hearing shall be held to consider any objections raised to the proposed tests before any test is administered. Before ordering that the defendant submit to the examination, the trial court must make a threshold determination that the proposed tests bear some reasonable relation to the mental state placed in issue by the defendant in a criminal action or a minor in a juvenile proceeding. For the purposes of this subdivision, the term “tests” shall include any and all assessment techniques such as a clinical interview or a mental status examination.

(2)The purpose of this subdivision is to respond to Verdin v. Superior Court 43 Cal.4th 1096, which held that only the Legislature may authorize a court to order the appointment of a prosecution mental health expert when a defendant has placed his or her mental state at issue in a criminal case or juvenile proceeding pursuant to Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Other than authorizing the court to order testing by prosecution-retained mental health experts in response to Verdin v. Superior Court, supra, it is not the intent of the Legislature to disturb, in any way, the remaining body of case law governing the procedural or substantive law that controls the administration of these tests or the admission of the results of these tests into evidence.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 35 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case: In Re Scott, 61 P.3d 402 (Cal. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Scott, 61 P.3d 402 (Cal. 2003). · cites it 4× “) Penal Code section 1054.3 was a logical place for the referee to look to fashion a fair discovery rule.”

People v. Nieves, 485 P.3d 457 (Cal. 2021). “This was consistent with the trial court’s earlier rulings that prosecutors were not entitled to outstanding defense expert materials until they testified and reflected the prosecution’s right to access the information for cross-examination, pursuant to Evidence Code section…”

Kling v. Superior Court, 239 P.3d 670 (Cal. 2010). · cites it 3× “(Pen. Code, §§ 1054.3, subd. (a), 1326, subd.”

Maldonado v. Superior Court, 274 P.3d 1110 (Cal. 2012). · cites it 2× “(b)(1) (section 1054.3(b)(1).) Here we must decide what general limits, if any, may properly be imposed on prosecutorial access to court-ordered examinations and their results, both before and after the defendant actually introduces mental-state evidence in the criminal trial,…”

Sarah Weeden v. Deborah Johnson, 854 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2017). “While a defendant must disclose expert reports she intends to rely on at trial, Cal. Penal Code § 1054.3 (a), simply procuring a report does not mean it must be produced, Sandeffer v.”

Hubbard v. Superior Court, 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 819 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “" If the discovery statute does not provide for prosecutorial discovery, it is not entitled thereto before, during, or after trial.”

People v. Gana, 236 Cal. App. 4th 598 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “(Pen. Code, §§ 1054.3, subd. (a)(1), 1054.”

Magallan v. Superior Court, 192 Cal. App. 4th 1444 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “) Penal Code section 1054.1 lists the information that the prosecutor must disclose to the defense.”

S.V. v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty., 221 Cal. Rptr. 3d 298 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). “(See Pen. Code, § 1054.3.) The defense is generally obligated to disclose the names and addresses of its trial witnesses as well as their statements (excluding the defendant), and any real evidence to be introduced at trial.”

Roe v. Superior Court CA6, 243 Cal. App. 4th 138 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “(a)(1)) and the phrase “the results of physical or mental examinations” (Pen. Code, § 1054.3, subd. (a)(1)) both encompass raw test data.”

People v. Lawson, 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7164 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). “(Pen. Code, § 1054.3 [requires reciprocal pretrial discovery].”

People v. Edwards, 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6128 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993). “5 Penal Code section 1054.3, subdivision (b), requires a criminal defendant to disclose to the prosecutor: “Any real evidence which the defendant intends to offer in evidence at the trial.”

Show all 35 citing cases →

— Cal. Penal Code § 1054.3(a) — 4 cases

Commonwealth v. Perez, 698 A.2d 640 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997).

Rossum v. Patrick, 622 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2010).

Rossum v. Patrick, 659 F.3d 722 (9th Cir. 2011).

Rossum v. Patrick, 659 F.3d 722 (9th Cir. 2010).

— Cal. Penal Code § 1054.3(a)(1) — 1 case

State v. Willden, 2024 UT 37 (Utah 2024).

— Cal. Penal Code § 1054.3(b)(1)(B) — 1 case

Wu v. Arnold (N.D. Cal. 2020).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.