Opinion ID: 1454560
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Psychiatric Treatment

Text: Owens asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to order funds for psychiatric treatment. Owens cites Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985). The Ake test for determining whether expert psychiatric services should be provided is a three-factor test balancing (1) the private interest in the accuracy of the criminal proceeding, (2) the State's interest that will be affected if the psychiatric assistance is provided, and (3) the probable value of the psychiatric assistance sought and the risk of error in the proceedings if the evidence is not offered. 470 U.S. at 77, 105 S.Ct. at 1093. In State v. Dunn, 243 Kan. 414, 419, 758 P.2d 718 (1988), this court was asked to adopt the balancing test advanced by Ake. The court refrained from endorsing the Ake balancing test, stating that, before any balancing test is employed, the defendant must first clearly show that his or her mental capacity is a significant issue for a defense to the charges. 243 Kan. at 419-20, 758 P.2d 718. Dunn had not made the threshold showing that her mental capacity was a significant issue for a defense to the charges. K.S.A. 22-4508 provides for authorization of funds for expert services if the judge determines that services are necessary and the defendant is financially unable to obtain them. The authorization of expert services in the criminal trial of an indigent defendant is a matter which lies within the discretion of the trial court. The trial court's decision will not be disturbed unless the defendant shows prejudice to his or her substantial rights resulting from abuse in the exercise of the trial court's discretion. Dunn, 243 Kan. at 418, 758 P.2d 718; see State v. Mayberry, ___ Kan. ___, 807 P.2d 86 (1991), this day decided. In the case at bar, Owens has not made the threshold showing that the effect of amnesia upon his mental capacity was a significant issue for a defense to the charges. The references to his amnesia were contained in the report of the Health Center, the affidavit of Dr. Werth, and statements of his counsel. The Health Center found his memory intact. Portions of the presentence investigation report were referred to by both Owens' counsel and the district attorney in their arguments on Owens' motion for a new trial. The report reflects Owens explained to the court services officer after conviction that his failure to testify was because he was not with anyone at the time of the incident and he decided the the jury would not believe him. No mention was made of amnesia. Owens has shown no prejudice to his substantial rights resulting from abuse in the exercise of the trial court's discretion.