(See also People v. Williams, (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1268, 1311-1312 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 834, 756 P.2d 221], finding no error in refusing requested voluntary intoxication instruction where supported only by "consumption (of LSD) plus odd behavior" evidence.) A very similar recent case is found in People v. Young (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 891 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 819]. Young was the driver of the vehicle causing a well-publicized accident in Westwood shortly before the 1984 Olympics.

(2) Psychiatrists, like other expert witnesses, are entitled to rely upon reliable hearsay, including the statements of the patient and other treating professionals, in forming their opinion concerning a patient's mental state. (Evid. Code, § 801, subd. (b); People v. Young (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 891, 913 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 819]; Conservatorship of Torres (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 1159, 1163 [ 226 Cal.Rptr. 142]; Korsak v. Atlas Hotels, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1516, 1524-1525 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 833]; see also People v. Miller (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 913, 917-919 [31 Cal.Rptr.2d 423].) On direct examination, the expert witness may state the reasons for his or her opinion, and testify that reports prepared by other experts were a basis for that opinion.

" ( Coddington, at pp. 582-583, italics added, fns. omitted.) Citing People v. Nunn (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1357 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 294] ( Nunn), People v. Young (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 891, 905 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 819] ( Young), People v. McCowan (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1, 12-15 [ 227 Cal.Rptr. 23] ( McCowan), and People v. Whitler (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 337 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 610] ( Whitler) for the proposition that a criminal defendant's federal constitutional right to present a defense is not violated by the "exclusion of expert testimony on the ultimate question of fact as to whether appellant did form those mental states," the Coddington court concluded: "Sections 28 and 29 do not preclude offering as a defense the absence of a mental state that is an element of a charged offense or presenting evidence in support of that defense. They preclude only expert opinion that the element was not present.

(7) Moreover, the right to effective assistance of counsel entitles indigent defendants to access to public funds for expert services. ( Ake v. Oklahoma (1985) 470 U.S. 68, 76-85 [84 L.Ed.2d 53, 61-68, 105 S.Ct. 1087]; Corenevsky v. Superior Court, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 319; People v. Young (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 891, 902 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 819] .)

Id.In perhaps the closest case on point, limits on a psychiatric expert testimony were upheld in People v. Young, 189 Cal. App. 3d 891 (1987). In Young, the defendant was convicted of first degree murder after he drove onto a sidewalk and struck a number of pedestrians, killing one.

Psychiatric records have been distinguished from other hospital records on the basis that they "tend to be opinions, rather than the record 'of an act, condition or event' which is admissible under Evidence Code section 1271" and a "psychiatric diagnosis is often merely the reasoning or thought process of the psychiatrist rendering the opinion, and as such cannot be deemed to be the record 'of an act, condition or event.'" (People v. Young (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 891, 912 (Young); People v. Reyes (1974) 12 Cal.3d 486, 503 (Reyes).) Reyes commented on the distinction between such a psychiatric diagnosis and one based on straightforward observation:"

(Ibid.) In perhaps the closest case on point, limits on a psychiatric expert testimony were upheld in People v. Young (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 891 (Young). In Young, the defendant was convicted of first degree murder after he drove onto a sidewalk and struck a number of pedestrians, killing one.

[Citation.] It is only necessary ancillary services to which an indigent is entitled. [Citations.]” (People v. Young (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 891, 902 (Young).) Such services may include appointment of an expert to assist the defense.

(2) Courts have uniformly concluded that sections 28 and 29 are "legitimate legislative determinations on the admissibility of certain classes of evidence and do not deprive a defendant of his or her right to present a defense." ( People v. Whitler (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 337, 340-341 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 610]; People v. Young (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 891, 904-905 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 819]; People v. McCowan (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1, 11-15 [ 227 Cal.Rptr. 23] ( McCowan); People v. Jackson (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 961, 969-967 [ 199 Cal.Rptr. 848] ( Jackson).) Appellant seems to suggest that section 29 allows an expert to express any opinion, however specific and determinative of the mental issues involved, as long as he does so without using the name of the specific mental state involved, for example, malice aforethought.

Defendant attacks this ruling and argues that the notes were hearsay that was not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. He relies on People v. Young (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 891 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 819] and People v. Reyes (1974) 12 Cal.3d 486 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 217, 526 P.2d 225]. Young is a criminal case in which the psychiatric records of defendant were not admitted during the sanity phase of the trial.