Nicholas Javier Zapata, Petitioner v. the People of the State of Colorado, Respondent.

Summary

The court held that competency-evaluation reports concerning Murillo were protected by the physician-patient or psychologist-client privilege, and that Murillo’s statutory waiver of privilege was limited to the parties and court in his own criminal case. Zapata was not entitled to the reports because he made only a speculative showing that they might contain impeachment or exculpatory evidence, and the Confrontation Clause did not create a pretrial discovery right. The court did not decide whether the challenged res gestae evidence was properly admitted, but held that any error was harmless because the properly admitted evidence of Zapata’s complicity was strong. Justice Hart, specially concurring, agreed with the result but would have found the res gestae ruling erroneous and questioned the doctrine’s continued use; Justice Samour, dissenting, would have required disclosure of the competency report and a remand for a materiality and prejudice determination.