Opinion ID: 1058243
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Denial of Request for Private Investigator

Text: Thomas argues that the trial court erred in denying her request for a court-appointed private investigator to assist her in locating [the Commonwealth's] witnesses for interview by Defendant's Counsel, so that Thomas would be able to effectively confront the witnesses against her and so that her counsel could provide effective assistance of counsel. We have long held that a defendant does not have an absolute right to the assistance of an investigator, even when charged with capital murder. Bailey v. Commonwealth, 259 Va. 723, 737, 529 S.E.2d 570, 578 (2000). Instead, as with any request for the appointment of an expert, a defendant must show a particularized need by establishing that the services of an expert would materially assist him in the preparation of his defense and that the denial of such services would result in a fundamentally unfair trial. Husske v. Commonwealth, 252 Va. 203, 212-13, 476 S.E.2d 920, 925-26 (1996). The determination whether a defendant has made an adequate showing of particularized need for expert assistance lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Id.; see also Lenz v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 451, 462, 544 S.E.2d 299, 305, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1003 [122 S.Ct. 481, 151 L.Ed.2d 395] (2001); Bailey, 259 Va. at 737, 529 S.E.2d at 578. . . . . A particularized need is more than a mere hope that favorable evidence can be obtained through the services of an expert. Husske, 252 Va. at 212, 476 S.E.2d at 925-26. Green v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 81, 91-92, 580 S.E.2d 834, 840-41 (2003). Thomas requested, as in Green, a court-appointed private investigator to locate witnesses so that she could effectively cross-examine those witnesses. As in Green, we hold that Thomas' request for the appointment of a private investigator fell `far short of demonstrating a particularized need for the services of an expert.' Id. at 92, 580 S.E.2d at 840-41. Thomas had the advantage of knowing most of the Commonwealth's witnesses who would testify against her because they were either her friends or family. Thomas' attorney could have located and interviewed these witnesses without the need of a private investigator. Recently, we restated the threshold requirements for appointment of an investigator to assist the defendant. In Dowdy v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 577, 594-95, 686 S.E.2d 710, 720 (2009), we stated that the defendant has the burden to make a `particularized showing of the need' for such assistance and that the sufficiency of such a showing is determined on a case-by-case basis, and the determination is a matter resting within a trial court's discretion. Thomas' request was generalized and not particularized. Id. at 595, 686 S.E.2d at 720. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion.