Opinion ID: 2633286
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Funding Request for an Alcohol-induced Electroencephalogram Test

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erroneously denied his multiple requests for funding to conduct an alcohol-induced electroencephalogram (EEG) test, thus violating his statutory rights under section 987.9 and various state and federal constitutional rights. [4]
On three occasions, defendant sought funding to conduct an alcohol-induced EEG on the basis that he may have suffered an alcohol-induced psychosis or allergic reaction on the day of Powell's murder due to his ingestion of alcohol, and as a result was unable to form the requisite specific intent of the charged offense. The court denied each request because it doubted whether the test results would be admissible, whether the test could duplicate a person's reactions to alcohol on a previous occasion, and whether this particular test was the only test that could determine allergic reactions to alcohol. The court noted that a defense psychiatrist had already received $2000, and it approved 10 additional hours for otherwise approved investigations.
An indigent defendant has a statutory and constitutional right to ancillary services reasonably necessary to prepare a defense. (§ 987.9, subd. (a); Corenevsky v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 307, 319-320, 204 Cal.Rptr. 165, 682 P.2d 360.) The defendant has the burden of demonstrating the need for the requested services. ( Corenevsky v. Superior Court, supra, at p. 320, 204 Cal.Rptr. 165, 682 P.2d 360.) The trial court should view a motion for assistance with considerable liberality, but it should also order the requested services only upon a showing they are reasonably necessary. ( Ibid. ) On appeal, a trial court's order on a motion for ancillary services is reviewed for abuse of discretion. ( People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 234, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 385, 926 P.2d 365; Corenevsky v. Superior Court, supra, at p. 321, 204 Cal.Rptr. 165, 682 P.2d 360.) We find no such abuse in this case. Defendant failed to demonstrate the test was reasonably necessary for his defense. Counsel provided no facts showing defendant blacked out or suffered any memory loss due to his ingestion of alcohol on the day Powell was murdered. Thus, defendant's assertion that he may have suffered a pathological reaction to alcohol that induced a state of unconsciousness or amnesia on the day Powell was murdered is mere speculation. Also, as the trial court noted, counsel failed to establish how the proposed test conditions would duplicate the circumstances on the day of the murder and yield relevant and reliable information. Indeed, counsel provided no explanation for his request that defendant be administered tequila during the test even though defendant admitted he drank beer on the day of the murder. Contrary to defendant's argument, Ake v. Oklahoma (1985) 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 does not compel a different conclusion. In Ake, the Supreme Court held an indigent defendant is entitled to access to a psychiatrist for assistance in preparing a defense when he makes a preliminary showing that his sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a significant factor at trial. ( Id. at p. 83, 105 S.Ct. 1087.) Defendant presented no evidence that he suffered a pathological reaction to alcohol on the day of Powell's murder. The record shows defendant had access to a psychiatrist, as Ake requires: a defense psychiatrist had received $2000 in court-approved funds, and the trial court approved an additional 10 hours for further investigation. Moreover, any error in denying defendant's request for funds was harmless. Defendant's palm prints and fingerprints were found in Powell's blood inside her utility room and also on the countertop in the remodeling site. Defendant testified he went inside Powell's house when he heard screaming. He found Powell lying in a little bit of blood. He tried to lift Powell by her shoulders but laid her back down when he realized she was too severely injured. Defendant returned to the remodeling site but did not call the police because he did not know how to dial 911. The level of detail in defendant's rendition of the facts on the day of Powell's murder belies any claim that alcohol rendered him unconscious. In addition, although defendant's nephew and sister-in-law testified they had observed defendant drink beer previously, there was no evidence that defendant had ever suffered a psychotic or allergic reaction to alcohol. Accordingly, defendant has failed to establish he was deprived of a fair trial or otherwise suffered prejudice from the denial of his request for funds. ( People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 159, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 6 P.3d 150.)