Opinion ID: 1771702
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: Unreasonable Interference in Funding Decisions

Text: Defendant argues that the trial court interfered with his right to present mitigating evidence by becoming overly involved in funding decisions. Specifically, he claims that the trial judge, apparently working to be certain that the fiscal impact was necessary, erroneously took up whether the particular need [for an expert] made sense. However, as we have noted above, the court, in making decisions about public funding for experts for indigent defenders, must determine whether there is a reasonable probability that the expert's evidence will materially assist the defense with respect to a substantial issue of the case. See State v. Touchet, 93-2839, pp. 4-6 (La.9/6/94); 642 So.2d 1213, 1216. Accordingly, the trial court must obtain some knowledge of defendant's case in order to make reasonable funding decisions. Moreover, the hearings of defendant's motions for funds were held ex parte; thus, he does not show that any prejudice resulted from the court's knowledge of his case.