Ehrke, Robert Bradley
2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 505
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- Appellant was arrested after officers saw him acting intoxicated and he discarded a cigarette pack containing a substance; DPS lab tested it and found 1.6 grams of methamphetamine.
- Appellant timely moved to inspect, examine, and test the alleged contraband and requested independent testing (weight and composition); the trial court allowed visual inspection but denied independent analysis and denied appointment of a state-paid expert.
- At trial a DPS chemist testified as to identification and weight (infrared spectroscopy and weighing of bag-minus-tare). Appellant was convicted and sentenced to 75 years based on enhancement and drug-free zone allegations.
- The court of appeals affirmed the denial of a court-appointed expert, focusing on the defendant’s failure to show a particularized need; it did not fully address whether inspection/analysis is an absolute right.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals granted review and held: (1) a defendant in a controlled-substance case has an absolute right to have the alleged substance analyzed by an independent expert (inspection includes analysis); (2) however, an indigent defendant is not automatically entitled to a court-appointed, state-funded expert absent a preliminary showing of a significant issue of fact.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant (Ehrke) | State | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a defendant charged with drug possession have a right to independent inspection/analysis of the alleged controlled substance? | Yes — inspection includes chemical analysis; needed to test weight/composition and build defense. | No — argued particularized need should be required for secondary testing. | Held: Defendant has an absolute right to inspection that includes independent analysis; trial court erred in denying testing at defendant’s expense. |
| Is the State required to pay for an indigent defendant’s independent expert to analyze the substance? | Yes — claimed denial violated due process and effective assistance. | No — state should not be forced to provide expert unless defendant makes preliminary showing of significant issue. | Held: No absolute right to state-funded expert; appointment requires a preliminary showing of a significant factual issue under Ake. |
| Did the trial court abuse discretion by denying appointment of a court-funded chemist here? | Appointment necessary to challenge weight near sentencing threshold. | Denial proper because appellant failed to show particularized need or doubt about lab results. | Held: No abuse as to appointing state-funded expert—appellant failed to make preliminary showing. |
| Remedy for trial-court denial of inspection/analysis? | Request reversal or remand for testing/inspection. | Opposed. | Held: Reversed and remanded — trial court must permit inspection/analysis (at appellant’s expense unless indigent showing justifies state-funded expert). |
Key Cases Cited
- Massey v. State, 933 S.W.2d 141 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (burden on defendant to show good cause under Article 39.14)
- Quinones v. State, 592 S.W.2d 933 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (evidence material to defense must be produced; inspection required)
- McBride v. State, 838 S.W.2d 248 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (defendant has right to independent inspection/analysis of drugs indispensable to State’s case)
- Detmering v. State, 481 S.W.2d 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (inspection includes chemical analysis, not merely visual examination)
- Mendoza v. State, 583 S.W.2d 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (timely request entitles defendant to have substance inspected by defense chemist)
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (U.S. 1985) (indigent defendant entitled to state-provided expert in some circumstances; preliminary showing required)
- Ex parte Jimenez, 364 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (burden on defendant to provide concrete reasons for appointment)
- Rey v. State, 897 S.W.2d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (need for appointed expert requires showing of significant factual issue and why expert help is needed)
- Jackson v. State, 992 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (Ake requires showing defendant’s need where State will present expert testimony beyond lay understanding)
- Taylor v. State, 939 S.W.2d 148 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (defendant must demonstrate complexity and importance of issue to obtain expert)