Cited by

9/6/94), (quoting People v. Loyer, 425 N.W.2d 714, 722 (1988)).

9/6/94), which Dyas cited in support of his motion for expert funding.

9/6/94), -22, (footnote omitted).

9/6/94), , the trial court found that Sanders failed to show a probability that an expert would be of assistance in his defense, given the prior cross-examination of the state's expert witnesses by prior counsel.

9/6/94), , defense counsel specifically requested public funds for the hiring of "a mitigation investigator, a fact investigator, a psychologist, an expert in trauma and a prison adjustment expert," arguing that the rules of capital sentencing should apply in a non-capital sentencing hearing.

9/6/94), , contends his request for funds must be shielded from the State to ensure he has a fair opportunity to show that his crime did not reflect irreparable corruption in accordance with Montgomery v. Louisiana , 577 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct.

9/6/94), , to conduct a proper Miller hearing and to allow him to employ a mitigation investigator, a fact investigator, a psychologist, an expert in trauma, and a prison adjustment expert.

In State v. Touchet, 93-2839 (La.9/6/94), , the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the procedure to be used to seek expert funding: ...

Roe cites State v. Touchet, 93-2839 (La.9/6/94), , relative to a court ordering the state to fund expert assistance to an indigent defendant.

State v. Touchet, 93-2839 (La.9/6/94), .

A trial court acts prematurely in staying the proceedings in non-capital cases at the outset on a generalized undifferentiated request *499 by pro bono counsel for funding and before counsel has made a particularized showing funds are necessary for investigators or experts according to the standard we set forth in State v. Touchet, 93-2889, p. 6 (La.9/6/94), , 1216: “there exists a reasonable probability both that an expert would be of assistance to the defense and that the denial of expert assi

In State v. Touchet, 93-2889 (La.9/6/94), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that for an indigent defendant to be granted the services of an expert at the expense of the State, he must establish that there exists a reasonable probability both that an expert would be of assistance to the defense and that the denial of expert assistance would result in a

However, in the instant case, considering the defendant's own delay and poor showing of necessity, cf. State v. Touchet, 93-2839, p. 6 (La.9/6/94), ("for an indigent defendant to be granted the services of an expert at the expense of the state, he must establish that there exists a reasonable probability both that an expert would be of assistance to the defense and that the denial of expert assistance would result in a fundamentally unfair trial."), which i

The Defendant then indicates that his constitutional rights were violated and cites State v. Touchet, 93-2839 (La.9/6/94)

In State v. Touchet, 1993-2839 (La.9/6/94), , the court considered whether, and to what extent, indigent defendants were entitled to ex parte hearings on their motions for state-funded expert witness services.

State v. Touchet, 93-2839 (La.9/6/94), .

In considering this issue, we noted that in State v. Touchet, 93-2839 (La.9/6/94), , this court addressed the specific issue of the showing an indigent needs to make to obtain state-funded expert assistance as follows: Henceforth, for an indigent defendant to be granted the services of an expert at the expense of the state, he must establish that there exists a reasonable probability both that an ex

9/6/94), wherein the court addressed whether an indigent defendant was entitled to an ex parte hearing on his requests for funding an expert witness.

9/6/94), Justice Calogero stated that “[i]n those parishes where the District Attorney is also the parish attorney, the prosecution must not be permitted to represent the entity objecting to the defendant’s request.

In State v. Touchet, 93-2839 (La.9/6/94), , Justice Calogero stated that "[i]n those parishes where the District Attorney is also the parish attorney, the prosecution must not be permitted to represent the entity objecting to the defendant's request.

In support, defendant cites State v. Touchet, 93-2839 (La.09/06/94), , and State v. Phillips, 05-1338 (La.

State v. Touchet, 93-2839 (La.9/6/94), .

State v. Touchet, 93-2839 (La.9/6/94), ( citing Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227 , 92 S.Ct.

In State v. Touchet, 1993-2839 (La.9/6/94), , the Louisiana Supreme Court established a procedure for trial courts to follow when faced with requests by indigent defendants for funds to pay experts.

In State v. Frank, 99-0553 (La.4/16/01), , this court remanded the case because the trial court failed to allow Frank "the opportunity to make a showing [of indigency] under [ State v. ] Touchet [93-2839 (La.9/6/94), ] as to her need for state-funded assistance for the purpose of presenting ...

As noted by the supreme court in State v. Touchet, 93-2839 (La.09/06/94), , 1218: [F]or an indigent defendant to be granted the services of an expert at the expense of the state, he must establish that there exists a reasonable probability both that an expert would be of assistance to the defense and that the denial of expert assistance would result in a fundamentally unfair trial.

See State v. Touchet, 93-2839, p. 6 (La.9/6/94), (holding that "for an indigent defendant to be granted the services of an expert at the expense of the state, he must establish that there exists a reasonable probability both that an expert would be of assistance to the defense and that the denial of expert assistance would result in a fundamentally unfair tria

See State v. Touchet, 93-2839 (La.9/6/94), , 1221 n. 4.

See State v. Touchet, 93-2839 (La.9/6/94), , 1221 n. 4.

State v. Touchet, 93-2839 (La.9/6/94), .

That court ordered the trial court to hold a to determine whether defendant should receive funds for an expert, but denied defendant's request for a continuance.

We noted, however, that defendant was "not barred from filing an ex parte motion, following the guidelines of State v. Touchet, 93-2839 (La.9/6/94); , seeking a declaration that he is indigent, but he must inform the trial court why he needs to be declared an indigent.

This court summarized an accused's discovery obligations regarding such reports *667 -19 (La.1994), stating: In Louisiana, the Code of Criminal Procedure recognizes that the onus of any criminal prosecution is upon the state, and that the state is not to receive any unfair advantages in the pretrial discovery process.

The question of whether experts should have been provided to a defendant who is unable to afford the services of an investigator, expert, or other outside assistance for his defense is governed by State v. Touchet, 93-2839 (La.9/6/94), .

State v. Touchet, 93-2839 (La.9/6/94); (citing to Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227 , 92 S.Ct.

9/6/94); , the district court should continue the trial to allow the defendant sufficient time to prepare for trial.

9/6/94); , the court explained that the State's obligation in providing effective assistance of counsel to an indigent defendant includes furnishing the defense counsel with all of the "basic tools of an adequate defense" at no cost to the indigent defendant.

9/6/94), , 1217 and 1220.