Opinion ID: 844263
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Denial of Funds for a Second Investigator

Text: Gonzales's trial counsel filed a confidential motion under section 987.9 for the appointment of a penalty phase investigator. He requested the appointment of Joel A. Sickler and authorization for $5,000 to pay for his services at a rate of $50 per hour. Counsel declared that Gonzales was indigent, that he was charged with three counts of murder in a capital case, that the investigative files provided to the defense by the prosecution were voluminous, and that the funds requested were reasonably necessary for the preparation and presentation of the defense in this case. The trial court denied the motion in a written order, stating: The motion for defense expert examination has been read, considered and denied. The Court has already appointed one investigator in the case at the standard rate of $25 per hour. There is no good cause why a second investigator should be appointed at twice the authorized rate or why the current investigator cannot perform the necessary work. Gonzales contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying him funds to appoint a second investigator. As we conclude below, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. (6) Section 987.9, subdivision (a) provides in relevant part: In the trial of a capital case . . . the indigent defendant, through the defendant's counsel, may request the court for funds for the specific payment of investigators, experts, and others for the preparation or presentation of the defense. . . . Upon receipt of an application, a judge of the court, other than the trial judge presiding over the case in question, shall rule on the reasonableness of the request and shall disburse an appropriate amount of money to the defendant's attorney. The defendant has the burden of demonstrating the need for the requested services. ( People v. Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1085.) Although the trial court should view a motion for assistance with considerable liberality, it should order the requested services only upon a showing they are reasonably necessary. On appeal, a trial court's order on a motion for ancillary services is reviewed for abuse of discretion. ( Ibid. ) Gonzales contends the trial court's refusal to appoint a second investigator resulted in an imbalance between the prosecution and the defense because the prosecutor had four investigators and he had only one. [10] Counsel did not explain in connection with his motion, however, and defendant still does not explain on appeal, why the investigator already appointed could not provide any necessary assistance or how additional resources might have changed his penalty phase defense. As a result, defendant failed to carry his burden to show that additional funding was reasonably necessary, and the trial court properly exercised its discretion to deny the motion. ( People v. Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1085.)