Opinion ID: 1948427
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Expert Funds

Text: Mannion claims that the trial court erred by not granting all the fees requested for a psychiatric expert and for a ballistics expert. [A]n indigent accused requesting public funds for experts must first show the trial court, to the extent he reasonably can then be expected to do so, why the services are necessary for an adequate defense; to appeal successfully from a denial of his request for funds, he must have been substantially prejudiced by the action of the trial court. State v. Anaya, 456 A.2d 1255, 1263 (Me. 1983); see also, State v. Barrett, 577 A.2d 1167, 1169 (Me.1990); State v. Gordius, 544 A.2d 309, 310 (Me.1988); State v. Lambert, 525 A.2d 1043, 1044 (Me.1987). Mannion claims that he was denied the psychiatric funds necessary to present an adequate defense. The psychiatric expert's testimony was used to present evidence showing that the confession was not voluntary. Mannion was granted $4,000 to spend on psychiatric experts. Mannion's expert did testify at trial to present the involuntary argument. Given the facts of this case, we conclude that Mannion was not substantially prejudiced. Regarding the fees requested for a ballistics expert, we conclude that Mannion failed to show why they were necessary for an adequate defense.