Opinion ID: 1816637
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the trial court refused to exclude highly prejudicial medical evidence of minimal probative value and refused to appoint the defense a medical expert.

Text: With respect to the defendant's demand for a medical expert, the Constitution does not require the State to furnish an indigent defendant with an expert on demand. Johnson v. State, 476 So.2d 1195 (Miss. 1985). However, fundamental fairness at times requires the authorization for appointment of such. Id. The denial of expert assistance must be weighed on a case by case basis in order to determine whether the denial of expert assistance was prejudicial to the assurance of a fair trial. Id. In the instant case, no such prejudice resulted. See also Davis v. State, 374 So.2d 1293 (Miss. 1979) (relief granted only when the accused demonstrates that the trial court's abuse of discretion was so egregious as to deny due process and as to render his trial fundamentally unfair). Here, the defendant had full access to the experts of the State together with the reports of those experts. The record further revealed that the defense counsel was able to subject the State's experts to a rigid cross examination, and that no indication of incompetency or bias was present with respect to the experts. The defendant was therefore not placed at a disadvantage by the refusal of the trial court to provide him with funds for an expert to examine blood and semen samples. The defendant contends that the medical evidence was highly prejudicial and of minimal probative value. However, relevancy must be determined by the trial judge on a case by case basis. Woodruff v. State, 518 So.2d 669 (Miss. 1988). Medical evidence provides proof that the victim was in fact raped and helps exclude possible suspects while supporting the defendant's conviction for rape. McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130 (Miss. 1987). We find this assignment of error to be without merit.