Opinion ID: 1667377
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Funds for prosecution expert

Text: In response to the State Hospital report which concluded Mr. Bowen was incapable of appreciating the criminality of his acts or conforming his conduct to the law at the time the crime was committed, the State asked for additional evaluation by Dr. Mathews, a professor at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. In the motion it was urged that the MPD diagnosis made by the State Hospital was uncertain and could be the basis of a mistake to be made by the judge and the jury. It was noted that State Hospital records with respect to Mr. Bowen had not been made available to the prosecution. The operative words of the motion were, The State moves the Court to allow... [Dr. Mathews] to examine the Defendant, review all medical and pertinent records concerning the Defendant at the State Hospital, diagnose any and all mental condition which the Defendant may have, and form an opinion.... The motion concluded by stating, The cost of the further psychiatric examination and evaluation shall be borne by the State. The motion did not contain a request for funds. In response, counsel for Mr. Bowen opposed the motion as doctor shopping and noted that a request for $10,000, presumably for the purpose of paying Dr. Mathews, from the Phillips County Quorum Court had been highly publicized. The Trial Court's order granting the motion said nothing about funding for the further examination. Dr. Mathews testified he was paid $5,000 for his work and testimony in the case, but did not reveal the source. The point of appeal is that the Trial Court erred in allowance of funds to the prosecution for the purpose of securing its own expert opinion regarding Bowen's mental health. The record simply does not support the assertion that the Trial Court awarded funds to the State for the additional examination. True, we have said that an indigent defendant has no right to funds to shop for a doctor to contradict the report of experts at the State Hospital. Sanders v. State, 308 Ark. 178, 824 S.W.2d 353 (1992). We have been cited to no case, however, in which we have said that a defendant, who has the means to obtain it, may not present the testimony of an additional expert. Nor is any authority cited to the effect that the State may not do so.