Opinion ID: 1598918
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the denial of burns' right to an independent psychologist expert to assist his defense violated constitutional rights.

Text: ¶ 95. Burns next maintains that the trial judge erred in denying him funds to hire an independent psychologist to assist his defense. In denying his motion for an independent psychiatrist, the trial judge found: THE COURT: Very well. Your motion is partly granted and partly denied. I will furnish you a handwriting expert. You have demonstrated the requisite need for that. However, with respect to the psychiatrist, based on the motion and statements made here in court, the Court does not feel that there is a showing having been made that would demonstrate the necessity of that expert. The record is silent and the motion is silent with respect to any mental problems this defendant may have experienced in the past, any irrational behavior between the defendant and defense counsel. For that reason those reasons I'm going to deny that portion of your motion as it relates to the psychiatrist. Anything further? ¶ 96. The State argues that counsel for Burns, in his motion for a psychiatrist, only stated that at the time the crime was committed, Mr. Burns may have been diminished capacity to some extent. The State cites Coleman v. State, 697 So.2d 777, 782 (Miss. 1997), in support of the proposition that, [d]etermination of whether the State must pay for an expert witness for an indigent defendant must be made on a case by case basis. ¶ 97. While there is no shortage of law on this issue, all of the cases previously decided by this Court rely on Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985). The United States Supreme Court said in Ake, [w]e therefore hold that when a defendant demonstrates to the trial judge that his sanity at the time of the offense is to be a significant factor at trial, the State must, at a minimum, assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense. This is not to say, of course, that the indigent defendant has a constitutional right to choose a psychiatrist of his personal liking or to receive funds to hire his own. Our concern is that the indigent defendant have access to a competent psychiatrist for the purpose we have discussed, and as in the case of the provision of counsel we leave to the States the decision on how to implement this right. Lanier v. State, 533 So.2d 473, 480-81 (Miss. 1988) ( quoting Ake, 470 U.S. at 83, 105 S.Ct. 1087). Counsel for Burns offers nothing more than undeveloped assertions that Burns needed an expert. There was never any evidence that Burns actually had any psychological problems, mental illness or would be a danger to society. ¶ 98. The Supreme Court has said that there is no due process violation in denying expert assistance where the defendant offered only undeveloped assertions that the expert would be beneficial. See Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985). Something more than `undeveloped assertions that the requested assistance would be beneficial' is required. Butler v. State, 608 So.2d 314, 321 (Miss. 1992) ( quoting Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 125 (Miss.1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 921, 112 S.Ct. 1970, 118 L.Ed.2d 570 (1992)). ¶ 99. Burns' motion for an independent psychiatrist was at best vague. Defense counsel never outlined the specific cost, value and purpose of an expert or investigator as required by this Court in Harrison v. State, 635 So.2d 894, 900-02 (Miss.1994). There was no indication whatsoever that Burns suffered from diminished capacity when the murder was committed other than empty assertions by his attorney. There was no reference to any potential incompetence regarding Burns' ability to stand trial. For these reasons, this issue is without merit.