Jacobson v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 21 November 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 1 CA-SA 02-0250.,1 CA-SA 02-0250. |
| Citation | 203 Ariz. 543,57 P.3d 733 |
| Parties | Rebecca Lynn JACOBSON, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Arthur ANDERSON, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the County of Maricopa, Respondent Judge, State of Arizona ex rel. Richard M. Romley, Maricopa County Attorney, Real Party in Interest. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Law Office of Tamara Brooks-Primera By Tamara Brooks-Primera, Tempe, Attorneys for Petitioner.
Richard M. Romley, Maricopa County Attorney By Lee White, Deputy County Attorney, Phoenix, Attorneys for Real Party in Interest.
¶ 1 Rebecca Lynn Jacobson seeks review of the trial court's denial of her motion for appointment at government expense of such experts as are reasonably necessary for her defense. She has no equally plain, speedy and adequate remedy by appeal. ARIZ. R.P. SPEC. ACT. 1(a); Martin v. Reinstein, 195 Ariz. 293, 300 ¶ 9, 987 P.2d 779, 786 (App.1999). Therefore, in an earlier order, we accepted jurisdiction, promising that this opinion would follow.
¶ 2 Jacobson was the driver of a vehicle involved in a single-vehicle-rollover accident in which two passengers were killed and a third passenger was injured. Based on evidence that she was legally intoxicated and speeding at the time of the accident, Jacobson was charged with two counts of manslaughter, class 2 dangerous felonies, and endangerment, a class 6 dangerous felony.
¶ 3 In preparation for trial, the State filed a witness list that included as expert witnesses an accident reconstructionist, D.J. Hansen, and a criminalist, Jennifer Klem. In response, Jacobson retained accident reconstructionist Michael Broughton and criminalist Chester Flaxmeyer, and listed them as witnesses.
¶ 4 Although Jacobson's parents had retained counsel to represent her, she has been declared by the trial court to be indigent. See ARIZ. R.CRIM. P. 6.4 ("Determination of indigency"); Knapp v. Hardy, 111 Ariz. 107, 110, 523 P.2d 1308, 1311 (1974)(The parent "had no legal obligation to provide legal counsel for the defendant, and the determination of indigency must be based on his financial condition and not that of relatives and friends."). Accordingly, she moved that the court appoint and order government payment for her experts. ARIZ. R.CRIM. P. 15.9.1 The court denied her motion, finding "no legal authority" to support the appointment and compensation of experts in a non-capital case. Jacobson then filed her petition for special action.
¶ 5 Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure ("Rule") 15.9 permits the trial court to appoint expert witnesses for an indigent defendant who makes the proper showing. Indeed, due process requires the appointment of expert witnesses for an indigent defendant when such testimony is reasonably necessary to present an adequate defense. See, e.g., Little v. Armontrout, 835 F.2d 1240, 1243 (8th Cir.1987)(refusal to appoint expert to assist indigent defendant rendered trial fundamentally unfair and required rape conviction to be set aside), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1210, 108 S.Ct. 2857, 101 L.Ed.2d 894 (1988); Mason v. Arizona, 504 F.2d 1345, 1351-52 (9th Cir.1974)(Due Process Clause "requires, when necessary, the allowance of investigative expenses or appointment of investigative assistance for indigent defendants in order to insure effective preparation of their defense by their attorneys" depending "upon the need as revealed by the facts and circumstances of each case"), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 936, 95 S.Ct. 1145, 43 L.Ed.2d 412 (1975); Bowen v. Eyman, 324 F.Supp. 339, 340 (D.Ariz.1970)("`[F]undamental fairness' is the touchstone, i.e., whether or not a defendant is entitled to a court-appointed expert depends on the facts and circumstances of the case."); State v. Lamar, 144 Ariz. 490, 495, 698 P.2d 735, 740 (App.1984)(constitutional considerations may mandate appointment of investigator in non-capital cases if denial would substantially prejudice defendant); cf. Knapp, 111 Ariz. at 113, 523 P.2d at 1314.2
¶ 6 The legislature has explicitly protected the right of an indigent defendant to expert assistance in capital cases, ARIZ.REV. STAT. § 13-4013(B) (2001), but the fact that this is a non-capital case is not dispositive because Rule 15.9 is not merely applicable to capital cases. And we decline to "draw a decisive line for due-process purposes between capital and non-capital cases." Little, 835 F.2d at 1243...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wang
...funds based upon the defendant's threshold showing of reasonable necessity, or a comparable standard. See, e.g., Jacobson v. Anderson, 203 Ariz. 543, 545, 57 P.3d 733 (App.2002) (expert is reasonably necessary to present adequate defense); In re T.W., 402 Ill.App.3d 981, 991, 342 Ill.Dec. 2......
-
State v. Wang
...based upon the defendant's threshold showing of reasonable necessity, or a comparable standard. See, e.g., Jacobson v. Anderson, 203 Ariz. 543, 545, 57 P.3d 733 (App. 2002) (expert is reasonably necessary to present adequate defense); In re T.W., 402 Ill. App. 3d 981, 991, 932 N.E.2d 125 (2......
-
State v. Bell
...See Ex Parte Sanders v. State, 612 So.2d 1199 (Ala.1993); Dubose v. State, 662 So.2d 1156 (Ala.Crim.App.1993); Jacobson v. Anderson, 203 Ariz. 543, 57 P.3d 733 (Ct.App.2002); Tran v. Superior Court, 92 Cal.App.4th 1149, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 506 (2001); People v. Worthy, 109 Cal.App.3d 514, 167 C......
-
Jones v. Sterling
...witnesses in capital cases is the same as the threshold showing required under Ake); Jacobson v. Anderson, 203 Ariz. 543, 545 ¶ 5, 57 P.3d 733, 735 (App.2002). In those cases in which a defendant requires expert assistance to raise a constitutional defense in a pretrial proceeding, we would......