Opinion ID: 1149229
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether the trial court committed reversible error in denying duplantis' request for a court-appointed and taxpayer funded investigator for the defense.

Text: ¶ 90. Duplantis filed a Motion for Trial Preparation Expense Funds asking that an expert criminal investigator for the purpose of assisting Defendant and counsel in the investigation of this case and the preparation of the trial of this case be appointed. An accused is required to offer concrete reasons for requiring assistance of an investigator. Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 125 (Miss. 1991). `[U]ndeveloped assertions' that an investigator would be helpful are not sufficient reason to warrant granting such assistance. ( quoting Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 323 n. 1, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 2637 n. 1, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985)). ¶ 91. Duplantis' motion failed to provide the name, propose the cost, or specify the purpose of the investigator. Duplantis did write a letter to the trial judge suggesting that he had found an investigator who charged $40.00 per hour, but he never came forward with any other facts or circumstances surrounding the investigator. Duplantis heard most of the witnesses in this case testify, and knew of the substance of their statements before they were given in open court. Furthermore, this is Duplantis' second trial on these very same facts. He has had ample time and opportunity to explore and develop the nooks and crannies of the circumstances surrounding his case. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Duplantis' motion for an investigator.