Opinion ID: 2232272
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Funds to Employ Expert Witnesses

Text: The defendant next contends that the trial court erred by denying his motions seeking funds as an indigent to employ a psychiatrist or social worker to assist him in determining and presenting evidence of mitigation during the death penalty phase. He argues that this Court apply Castor v. State (1992), Ind., 587 N.E.2d 1281, to find an abuse of discretion in denying the requested funds. In Scott v. State (1992), Ind., 593 N.E.2d 198, we recently reviewed Indiana's commendable history of providing indigent criminal defendants with the means to defend themselves. We recognized and discussed the two central considerations involved: whether the services are necessary to assure an adequate defense, and whether the defendant specifies precisely how he would benefit from the requested expert services. Id. at 200 (citations omitted). The defendant's first motion sought funds to employ a specified psychiatrist to evaluate the defendant and present testimony in the penalty phase, if required. Record at 149. It further sought to hire a social worker to conduct an extensive social history investigation concerning the defendant in order to mitigate the time otherwise required of the psychiatrist. Id. Following the denial of this motion, the defendant filed a modified motion requesting funds to employ a psychosocial worker only to compile a psychosocial history. The motion argued that [c]ounsel disagrees with the proposition that he is not entitled to employ experts to go on a fishing expedition, urged that the psychosocial history would at least enable counsel to ascertain whether some indication of mitigation exists, and asserted that without the help of the psychosocial worker counsel has no way of even exploring the potential existence of mitigating factors. Record at 156-57. Neither motion was supported by the identification of any specific mitigating factors for which evidence was being sought and was not otherwise available. We find no abuse of discretion in denying the motions. The appointing of an expert is not necessary when the purpose of the expert appears to be exploratory only. Scott, 593 N.E.2d at 200; Hough v. State (1990), Ind., 560 N.E.2d 511, 516. The statutory mitigating circumstances in most cases are matters generally within the common experience of average persons and capable of fair ascertainment and presentation in evidence by attorneys. Absent an adequate showing demonstrating a substantial probability of a specific mitigating circumstance, the providing of psychiatrists or social workers will not be required. Such a showing was not made in this case.