Opinion ID: 1796517
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied tina hunt funds to employ an investigator, denying tina her constitutional rights?

Text: Tina also argues that her motion for funds to hire an investigator should have been granted because the State provided only partial information on only thirty of the seventy-two anticipated witnesses listed by the State. The State conceded that several of the witnesses they listed lacked addresses or phone numbers. However, the trial court denied Tina's motion and ruled that it could not find a sufficient need to justify an investigator. Tina's counsel moved unsuccessfully for a continuance; the motion was based on the demands of investigating the discovery still being produced by the State. Defense counsel noted he had forty-five to fifty witnesses left to interview, and that he could not complete those interviews in the time remaining prior to trial. The standard of review in Mississippi on this issue is as follows: to reverse, the trial court's denial of expert assistance must be an abuse of discretion so egregious as to deny [the defendant] due process and where [the defendant's] trial was thereby rendered fundamentally unfair. Fisher v. City of Eupora, 587 So.2d 878, 883 (Miss. 1991). See Johnson v. State, 529 So.2d 577, 590 (Miss. 1988). Undeveloped assertions that expert assistance will be helpful are insufficient. Griffin v. State, 557 So.2d 542, 550 (Miss. 1990). Tina has failed to demonstrate how her inability to interview these witnesses hurt her at trial. Specifically, Tina does not show any prejudice from her inability to interview all of these witnesses. Therefore, this issue lacks merit.