Nicholas Javier Zapata, Petitioner v. the People of the State of Colorado, Respondent. — Samour, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Samour dissented from the majority's conclusion that a codefendant's court-ordered competency-evaluation report was protected by the physician-patient or psychologist-client privilege and unavailable to Zapata. He would have held that neither privilege applied because the evaluator was acting for the court rather than providing treatment to a patient or client, and that any privilege was independently waived without the majority's case-specific limitation. Justice Hart, specially concurring, agreed with the result but would have treated the admission of unrelated prior-bad-act evidence as error and questioned the continued use of the res gestae doctrine.