Opinion ID: 1379313
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: denial of investigative funds

Text: (15) Defendant contends the trial court erroneously denied his application for $4,000, under section 987.9, to conduct an Amytal or sodium pentothal interview to enhance defendant's memory of the crimes. He claims the denial deprived his psychiatric expert of a full opportunity to describe the origins of defendant's emotional and mental disturbance. However, the only purpose for the proposed procedure mentioned in the application to the trial court was to assist in the cross-examination of Soria and Forrester, who in fact never testified at defendant's trial. The application did not state any need of an Amytal or sodium pentothal interview for purposes of psychiatric evaluation. Defendant's failure to state to the trial court his now asserted reason for desiring the testing defeats his claim of error. He had the burden of showing that the investigative services were reasonably necessary by reference to the general lines of inquiry he wished to pursue, being as specific as possible. ( Corenevsky v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 307, 320 [204 Cal. Rptr. 165, 682 P.2d 360].) Although a motion for assistance should be viewed with considerable liberality ( ibid. ), on appeal the trial court's order is presumed correct. Error must be affirmatively shown. ( Id. at p. 321.) Error is not shown on appeal by urging reasons for the investigation not presented to the court. The denial was not an abuse of discretion. ( Ibid. )