558 S.W.3d 923
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- William Harry Meece, sentenced to death, filed a post-conviction RCr 11.42 motion; the trial court scheduled an evidentiary hearing.
- Meece sought state funding under KRS 31.185 to retain private expert witnesses and requested the funding-determination hearing be held ex parte.
- The Commonwealth objected, arguing it must participate to contest whether experts were "reasonably necessary" and that the funding hearing was premature because the court had not identified which claims required an evidentiary hearing.
- The trial court held an ex parte hearing and granted funding in part; the Commonwealth petitioned for a writ of prohibition to prevent disbursement of funds.
- The Supreme Court considered whether KRS 31.185(2) ex parte hearings apply in post-conviction proceedings, whether the "reasonably necessary" inquiry may be heard ex parte, and whether the funding hearing was premature.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Meece's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a writ of prohibition is appropriate | Writ proper to prevent erroneous disbursement of public funds | N/A (responded that Commonwealth lacks standing) | Writ available; Commonwealth met threshold showing of irreparable harm and lack of adequate appeal remedy |
| Whether KRS 31.185(2) ex parte hearings apply to post-conviction petitioners | Ex parte hearings should not apply; Stopher restricts statute to trial-stage defending attorneys | Statute and prior case law support ex parte hearings for post-conviction petitioners | KRS 31.185(2) applies to post-conviction petitioners; Stopher limited/overruled by subsequent cases (Hodge, Paisley) |
| Whether the "reasonably necessary" determination must be made in public with Commonwealth present | The "reasonably necessary" judicial standard is judge-made and not expressly authorized to be decided ex parte; Commonwealth must be allowed to contest to protect public funds | The statute broadly authorizes ex parte hearings "with regard to using private facilities," so both "impractical" and "reasonably necessary" inquiries fall within subsection (2) | Court held both determinations may be heard ex parte if petitioner requests; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether the funding hearing was premature absent a prior ruling that specific claims warrant an evidentiary hearing | Funding hearing premature because the order setting the evidentiary hearing did not specify claims, risking payment for experts on claims later refuted by record | Trial court had set an evidentiary hearing and had not rejected any claims; Hodge requires only that a hearing be ordered before funds may be granted | Funding hearing was not premature; threshold Hodge requirement met and trial court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Paisley v. Commonwealth, 201 S.W.3d 34 (Ky. 2006) (approved granting writ to prevent disbursement of public funds when requisite findings were not made)
- Stopher v. Conliffe, 170 S.W.3d 307 (Ky. 2005) (interpreted KRS 31.185 as limited to trial-stage defending attorneys)
- Hodge v. Coleman, 244 S.W.3d 102 (Ky. 2008) (held KRS 31.185 funds for post-conviction petitioners require a court-ordered evidentiary hearing on petition allegations)
- Mills v. Messer, 268 S.W.3d 366 (Ky. 2008) (explained "reasonably necessary" standard for expert funding)
- White v. Commonwealth, 500 S.W.3d 208 (Ky. 2016) (clarified interaction of funding standards and procedural requirements)