Opinion ID: 2582487
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Defense's Requested Funding for Expert

Text: ¶ 65 Yates also contends that the trial court erred by withholding funding for a defense expert on prostitution. CrR 3.1(f) governs the appointment of a defense expert at public expense: (1) A lawyer for a defendant who is financially unable to obtain investigative, expert, or other services necessary to an adequate defense in the case may request them by a motion to the court. (2) Upon finding the services are necessary and that the defendant is financially unable to obtain them, the court . . . shall authorize the services. (Emphasis added.) As this court stated in State v. Young, 125 Wash.2d 688, 691, 888 P.2d 142 (1995), [w]hether expert services are necessary for an indigent defendant's adequate defense lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and shall not be overturned absent a clear showing of substantial prejudice. ¶ 66 Yates failed to demonstrate that his proposed expert was necessary to an adequate defense. CrR 3.1(f)(1). After the State notified the defense of its intention to call Everson as an expert on the practices of women engaged in prostitution, the defense brought an ex parte motion under CrR 3.1(f), requesting funds for its own expert on prostitution. Defense counsel stated that the defense wanted Mr. Parker . . . to give [his] insight into women's behavior that are working on the street. 16 VRP at 852. Counsel explained that it relates to the aggravator primarily of robbery, and it addresses whether or not women typically carry purses, carry money, those kinds of things. Id. Responding to a question from the court, counsel stated that she did not believe that there [was] a lot of difference in opinion in general about . . . how these women operate, and she acknowledged that she had already disclosed to [the State] that [Mr. Parker's] testimony would be similar to the testimony of the State's expert. Id. at 853, 854-55. Expressing a desire to have more information regarding the special contributions that the defense's proposed expert would make, the court entered an order stating that the defense's funding request was [d]enied at this time subject to further hearing or information. 16 VRP at 854-55; CP at 2511. The record is devoid of any further information that the defense provided concerning the anticipated testimony of its proposed expert on prostitution. Absent any evidence that his proposed expert would have provided services necessary to an adequate defense, CrR 3.1(f)(1), Yates cannot meet his burden of showing that the trial court abused its discretion and substantially prejudiced his defense. Young, 125 Wash.2d at 691, 888 P.2d 142. ¶ 67 The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the expert testimony of Safarik and Everson under ER 702 and by denying the defense's motion under CrR 3.1(f) for public funds to retain its proposed expert on prostitution. ¶ 68 8. Admission of Photographic Evidence. Yates argues that the trial court improperly admitted three autopsy photographs, the in-life photographs of the Spokane victims, and photographs of certain possessions of two Spokane victims.