Does a defendant's right against self-incrimination under section 1369 of the California Criminal Code apply to a psychiatrist appointed under the Mental Health Act?

In Tarantino v. Superior Court (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 465, 122 Cal.Rptr. 61, the court considered the question whether compelling a defendant to submit to an examination by court-appointed psychiatrists violated the defendant's right against self-incrimination. The court concluded such an examination did not violate that right because of a judicially declared immunity reasonably to be implied from the code provisions. To protect a defendant's privilege against self-incrimination, the court declared "that neither the statements of [a defendant] to the psychiatrists appointed under section 1369 nor the fruits of such statements may be used in trial of the issue of ... guilt, under either the plea of not guilty or that of not guilty by reason of insanity." (Id. at p. 470, 122 Cal.Rptr. 61.)