Possibly. Penal Code section 1054.3(b) allows a court, on a timely prosecution request, to order an examination by a prosecution-retained mental-health expert when the defense proposes expert trial testimony that places the defendant’s mental state at issue. It does not automatically apply just because someone has a diagnosis, therapy records, or has requested diversion. Penal Code section 1054.3.

The trigger is proposed expert testimony about mental state at the time of the offense or a sanity phase—not the bare existence of mental-health information. In People v. Sharp, the court applied the statute in an insanity proceeding. A published appellate decision filed September 17, 2026, held that a mental-health diversion request alone did not authorize this compelled examination under section 1054.3(b). People v. Sharp; September 17, 2026 published decision.

Review the proposed tests before the examination

The court must consider whether the proposed tests reasonably relate to the mental-state issue the defense has placed in dispute. The statute treats a clinical interview as a test. If the defense asks for an objection hearing before testing, the court holds one to consider the proposed examination. Counsel should compare each requested test or interview topic with the actual expert testimony and mental-state question; a request should not be treated as unlimited simply because one issue is at stake.

The prosecution pays the fees of its retained expert. Before the exam, keep the prosecution request, test list, proposed order, defense expert disclosures, and court rulings together so counsel can identify what is actually authorized.

The use of compelled answers is limited

In People v. Maldonado, the California Supreme Court explained that compelled examination responses cannot be used directly or derivatively beyond proper rebuttal of the mental-state evidence. That protection does not create an automatic right to withhold or redact all examination material from the prosecution before trial. The permitted use depends on the evidence and proposed use, so counsel should examine the actual order and any dispute about access or use. People v. Maldonado.

A diversion application, competency issue, and expert testimony at trial are different procedural settings. Another law may govern a specialized proceeding. The Law Offices of David S. Chesley handles California criminal trials. Call (800) 755-5174 to discuss the defense expert, request, and proposed tests.