L. A. Barksdale v. State of Mississippi, 176 So. 3d 108

Victim ("Jane"), age 13, testified that defendant L.A. Barksdale (49) had vaginal intercourse with her in the early morning of Oct. 20, 2012; she cried, pushed him, ran to tell a half-sibling, and later disclosed to her godmother who took her to the hospital.
Hospital sexual-assault exam recovered vulvar, vaginal, and rectal swabs; serology found sperm cells on those swabs.
DNA testing produced a mixed male profile on sperm-containing swabs; a minor male profile matched Barksdale and the female epithelial profile matched Jane.
Police located and arrested Barksdale; he gave a written statement denying sexual contact and provided a buccal swab for DNA; he had been released on bond pending trial.
At trial Barksdale was absent despite repeated contacts and reminders from his attorney and family; the trial court tried him in absentia and a jury convicted him of statutory rape of a child under 14 and sentenced him to 30 years plus sex-offender registration.
Post-trial, Barksdale appealed asserting (1) error in proceeding with trial in his absence and (2) error in denying funds for a defense DNA expert.

Issue	Barksdale's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Trial in absentia: was proceeding without defendant reversible error?	Trial court erred because no written notice of trial date and no proof of knowing, voluntary waiver of right to be present.	Barksdale was on bond, his attorney and family notified him repeatedly; absence was voluntary/default under §99-17-9.	Affirmed — not plain error; defendant was aware of trial date and voluntarily absent.
Denial of funds for defense DNA expert	Defense needed expert funding to fairly contest State’s DNA evidence; denial deprived him of Ake-type assistance.	Trial court properly exercised discretion; defendant had access to State’s experts and effective cross-examination; evidence against defendant was overwhelming.	Affirmed — error in finding indigency harmless; no denial of a fair trial because State’s case (victim testimony, presence at scene, sperm on swabs, DNA match) overwhelming.

Blanchard v. State, 55 So. 3d 1074 (Miss. 2011) (defendant on bail who knowingly failed to appear waives right to be present at trial)
Lowe v. State, 127 So. 3d 178 (Miss. 2013) (indigent defendant entitled to expert assistance when denial would render trial fundamentally unfair)
Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (U.S. 1985) (state must provide necessary psychiatric expert assistance to indigent defendant when required for a fair trial)
Fisher v. City of Eupora, 587 So. 2d 878 (Miss. 1991) (expert assistance for indigent defendant required only when necessary to ensure a fundamentally fair trial)