Opinion ID: 1747978
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Pre-Trial Motion to Transport for Additional Testing

Text: In September of 1998, Appellant filed under seal an Ex Parte Motion To Transport Defendant For Examinations, which requested that he be secretly (that is, unbeknownst to the prosecution) transported to Barnes Hospital in St. Louis for a battery of mental and neurological tests. Appellant contends on appeal that the trial court erred and abused its discretion in denying this motion. According to Appellant, its denial stymied his defense at trial, because as a result thereof his experts were unable to definitively determine whether Appellant had neurological damage and was mentally ill and were not sufficiently able to respond to the State's claims that his experts' opinions were inaccurate. We disagree. Appellant's ex parte motion was filed in violation of Rule 20.04, which requires service to opposing counsel of motions like this. The motion could properly be denied on that ground alone. Normally, a defendant is not entitled to an ex parte hearing on such a matter. See State v. Tokar, 918 S.W.2d 753, 765 (Mo. banc 1996). Moreover, Appellant's motion was filed before any proceedings had been initiated or requested pursuant to section 552.020, and Appellant failed to plead any specific facts in support of his motion showing that his mental capacity was seriously at issue at that time or that the requested testing was necessary to his defense. See Guinan v. Armontrout, 909 F.2d 1224, 1227 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding that defendant must plead and prove facts demonstrating a reasonable probability that the requested tests would aid in his defense and that denial of the tests would result in an unfair trial.) Finally, we note once proper proceedings to investigate Appellant's competency were initiated under section 552.020 in March of 1999, Appellant never, prior to being convicted, renewed his earlier request to be transported to St. Louis for additional testing notwithstanding the fact that he was extensively tested and examined by two defense experts, who presumably could have expressed the need for such additional tests if one existed. The trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's ex parte motion.