Elijah W. v. Superior Court

216 Cal. App. 4th 140, 156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 592 (2013)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
E
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Elijah W. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal
216 Cal. App. 4th 140, 156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 592 (2013)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

The State of California filed a wardship petition against Elijah W. (plaintiff), a 10-year-old boy, after Elijah committed an act of arson. A public defender was appointed to defend Elijah. Because of Elijah’s age, poor communication skills, and immaturity, Elijah’s public defender petitioned for Dr. Catherine Scarf to be appointed to perform a psychiatric evaluation of Elijah’s competency to understand and participate in his own defense. Dr. Scarf stated that, if appointed as Elijah’s defense expert, she would respect attorney-client privilege and would not reveal anything Elijah disclosed to her during the evaluation process. In California, attorney-client privilege extends to communications with retained experts, meaning non-neutral experts hired by one party in a litigation. The Superior Court (defendant) denied Elijah’s motion, holding that Elijah could only select an expert from the court’s Juvenile Competency to Stand Trial Panel (JCST Panel) and Dr. Scarf was not on the JCST Panel. The JCST Panel experts stated that, unlike Dr. Scarf, they believed mandated-reporter requirements and Tarasoff reporting requirements superseded attorney-client privilege. Elijah appealed and sought a writ of mandate directing the superior court to appoint Dr. Scarf.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Perluss, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 820,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 989 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Family Law

Key Terms

Related Videos