Case Title: State v. Higginbotham

Citation: 174 Vt. 640, 816 A.2d 547

Docket Number: 2002-308

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2002-12-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Higginbotham (2002-308); 174 Vt. 640; 816 A.2d 547

[Filed 24-Dec-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-308

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2002

  State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
  Laura Higginbotham        	       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 2792-5-01 Cncr

                                                Trial Judge:  Michael S. 
                                                              Kupersmith

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶ 1.  Defendant appeals from the denial of her private counsel's
  sealed ex parte motion requesting public funding for expert witnesses and
  investigative services necessary to her defense of a charge of involuntary
  manslaughter.  The court denied the motion on the ground that defendant is
  not a needy person under 13 V.S.A. § 5231(2).  We affirm.

       ¶ 2.  Defendant is charged with the death of her adopted minor
  daughter, which occurred in November, 1998.  The case for the State will
  purportedly be built on the testimony of several expert witnesses in
  various medical and forensic specialties.  Defendant's private counsel
  filed an "Ex Parte Motion for State Payment of Necessary Services and
  Facilities of Representation," alleging that defendant is unable to pay the
  fees and travel expenses of expert witnesses required to counter the
  State's evidence.   The trial court held an ex parte hearing.  Defendant
  submitted an affidavit of income and expenses.  The affidavit showed that
  defendant had a gross monthly income of $5,264 for the month preceding the
  application, and an annual income of $72,984 for the year preceding the
  application.  Total household income was higher, $7,829 per month, because
  defendant's husband contributed to the expenses of the household. 
  Defendant's total expenses were $6,725 per month, which she was able to
  afford because of her husband's contribution to household income.  The
  trial court found that retention of the experts identified by defendant
  will be necessary to making her defense to the charges, but denied the
  motion for state payment because defendant's income is too high for her to
  qualify for state assistance with her legal representation.  The trial
  court also noted that defendant could meet the expenses of her defense by
  subordinating the claims of her attorneys, who had already received
  substantial payment of their expected fee, to those of the experts she
  wanted to hire, or paying the expert witnesses over time.
   
         

       ¶ 3.  In reviewing a trial court's decision on whether a defendant
  is eligible for a requested service to be provided at the state's expense,
  we defer to the trial court unless there is a showing that the court abused
  or failed to exercise its discretion.  State v. Handson, 166 Vt. 85, 92,