109 So. 3d 1044
Miss.2013Background
- Dante Evans, age 14, was convicted of murdering his father in Mississippi and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed; certiorari was granted to review six defenses-related issues, with focus ultimately on mental-health evidence funding.
- Dante claimed PTSD from childhood abuse warranted a PTSD expert to explain his state of mind at the time of the shooting.
- Dr. Beverly Smallwood evaluated Dante for competency but could not testify about PTSD effects; defense sought Dr. O’Brien as PTSD expert.
- The trial court denied funds for a PTSD expert, prompting the defense to appeal as a due-process violation affecting a fair trial.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the denial of PTSD-expert funding abused discretion and violated due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of PTSD expert funds violated due process. | Dante showed concrete need for PTSD expertise. | State denied entitlement to defense funds for personal choice of expert. | Yes; denial was an abuse of discretion and violated due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1985) (due-process right to an expert to aid in defense when necessary to fair trial)
- Hunt v. State, 687 So.2d 1154 (Miss. 1996) (indigent defense cost due to need to prepare adequate defense)
- Johnson v. State, 476 So.2d 1195 (Miss. 1985) (due-process protections for defense expenditures; standard for abuse of discretion)
- Ruffin v. State, 447 So.2d 113 (Miss. 1984) (necessity of expert testimony to ensure fair trial for certain defenses)
- Davis v. State, 374 So.2d 1293 (Miss. 1979) (case defining when expert assistance is required for a fair trial)