Opinion ID: 865371
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Independent Expert Pathologist

Text: ¶9. King asserts that the trial court erred in denying him funds to retain an independent expert pathologist. Citing Ake with regard to whether a court is required to pay for an expert witness for an indigent defendant, King argues that he had a “uniquely compelling” private interest in the accuracy of his sentencing hearing because his life was at stake. Ake, 470 U.S. at 77. King asserts that the testimony of Dr. Ben Martin, the pathologist who performed the autopsy on Patterson, was the primary evidence offered by the State to prove the “especially heinous, atrocious or cruel” aggravation circumstance. King specifically points 7 out Dr. Martin’s testimony that Patterson may have remained conscious while she was strangled and drowned. King also cites this Court’s statement in his previous appeal that whether Patterson was conscious during the strangulation and drowning was a significant question in determining whether the crimes was heinous, atrocious or cruel. King, 784 So. 2d at 888. King argues that Dr. Riddick, an independent expert pathologist, could have provided strong competing testimony by identifying specific errors in Dr. Martin’s procedures and substantive findings, and thus due process and fundamental fairness required the trial court to allow King access to an independent pathologist. King argues that he satisfies the standard set by this Court in Harrison for relief from denial of funds, as the affidavit of Dr. Riddick gave concrete reasons that assistance would be beneficial. Harrison, 635 So. 2d at 901. Conversely, the State argues that King has not offered anything more than “unsubstantiated assertions” that he would have benefitted from expert assistance. As such, the State argues that King is not entitled to relief under Harrison because he has not shown that he has suffered any prejudice as a result of the trial court’s denial of funds. ¶10. This Court previously addressed this very issue in King’s last direct appeal. In holding that the trial court’s denial of funds did not require reversal of the death sentence, we stated: The State called an expert, Dr. Ben Martin, who testified that Patterson was conscious when she was killed. Dr. Martin testified to specific procedures used to show how he came to his conclusion that Patterson was conscious. Dr. Martin further testified that Patterson’s head injuries were the result of multiple blows to the head. King was denied his own expert to rebut this testimony. 8 A defendant is entitled to an expert to rebut expert opinion on “crucial elements.” Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 77, 105 S. Ct. 1087, 1093, 84 L. Ed. 2d 53 (1985). A fundamental question to be answered, however, is whether King has shown a “substantial need” for expert assistance. “Mississippi case law states expert assistance should be granted upon a showing of substantial need.” Holland v. State, 705 So. 2d 307, 333 (Miss. 1992) (quoting Butler v. State, 608 So. 2d 314, 321 (Miss.1992)). “‘Undeveloped assertions’ of helpfulness to the defense are insufficient to show that need.” Id. (quoting Hansen v. State, 592 So. 2d 114, 125 (Miss. 1991)). The crucial issue here was whether the crime was heinous, atrocious, or cruel. Thus, whether Patterson was conscious during the strangulation and drowning becomes a significant question. Certainly, this is a “crucial issue” within the meaning we have given that term. However, King can show no substantial need for his own expert witness since, upon cross-examination, Dr. Martin testified that Patterson may have been unconscious during the strangulation and drowning. Dr. Martin’s testimony directly rebutted the State’s argument and aided King in his defense. Consequently, King suffered no prejudice by not having a pathologist testify on his behalf. The error, if present, was harmless. King v. State, 784 So. 2d 884, 888-889 (Miss. 2001) (emphasis added). At the 2003 resentencing trial, Dr. Martin testified that Patterson could have retained consciousness for ten to twenty minutes, depending on whether she was struck on the head or strangled first. However, on cross-examination, King’s counsel refreshed Dr. Martin with a copy of his 1980 testimony and extensively questioned him concerning Patterson’s consciousness and whether strangulation was the primary cause of death. Dr. Martin testified that Patterson may have retained consciousness, but it is also possible that she may have lost consciousness from the blow to the back of her head, and possibly never regained it. Further, in response to questioning by the defense concerning whether manual strangulation could render a person unconscious within a period of thirty seconds,2 Dr. Martin stated that it is possible. After 2 Dr. Martin prefaced his response by saying he did not have experience to say whether manual strangulation could render a person unconscious within 30 seconds, but he 9 reviewing Dr. Martin’s testimony, we conclude that King has not shown the required substantial need to obtain independent expert assistance because Dr. Martin’s testimony on cross-examination rebutted the State’s argument. Holland, 705 So. 2d at 333. ¶11. Additionally, in his affidavit, Dr. Riddick opined that the State’s investigation of the crime scene and the examination of Patterson are problematic for four reasons. First, Dr. Riddick stated that there appeared to be insufficient evidence of some of the victim’s injuries as well as whether she was conscious during the attack. Next, he stated that some of the procedures performed during the autopsy were not proper. Lastly, he said the investigation of the crime scene appeared to be inadequate, and could have caused post-mortem injuries to Patterson’s body. This lone paragraph offered by Dr. Riddick presents nothing in the form of concrete reasons that an independent expert would benefit King in his defense. Harrison, 635 So. 2d at 901 (stating that “[o]f course a defendant must come forth with concrete reasons, not unsubstantiated assertions that assistance would be beneficial.) Rather, this constitutes an example of “undeveloped assertions” of helpfulness that we discussed in Harrison and Holland. There is no merit to this issue.