A. If counsel is appointed by the court and represents the defendant in either a criminal proceeding or insanity hearing, counsel shall be paid by the county in which the court presides, except that in those matters in which a public defender is appointed, no compensation shall be paid by the county. Compensation for services rendered to the defendant shall be in an amount that the court in its discretion deems reasonable, considering the services performed.
B. If a person is charged with a felony offense the court may on its own initiative and shall on application of the defendant and a showing that the defendant is financially unable to pay for such services appoint investigators and expert witnesses as are reasonably necessary to adequately present a defense at trial and at any subsequent proceeding.
C. Compensation for investigators and expert witnesses who are appointed pursuant to subsection B of this section shall be at such rates as the county contracts for such services. If a necessary expert witness represents a discipline or has a skill that is not then the subject of a county contract, the county may either promptly procure those services pursuant to section 11-254.01 or ask the court to establish a reasonable fee for that witness. If no investigator or expert witness who is under contract with the county to provide services is available and the defendant is unable to obtain such services at the county rate, the court shall establish a reasonable fee for the expert witness or investigator providing the service.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
39
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case:
State v. Bocharski, 22 P.3d 43 (Ariz. 2001).
State v. Bocharski, 22 P.3d 43 (Ariz. 2001).
· cites it 8× “See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-4013(B) (1989) (requiring counties to pay for experts and investigators in capital proceedings upon a showing that it is reasonably necessary to provide an indigent's defense); State v.”
State v. Barreras, 892 P.2d 852 (Ariz. 1995).
· cites it 12× “Compliance with Ake and A.R.S. § 13-4013 Relying on Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.”
Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985).
· cites it 2× “100 (1981); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-4013 (1978) (capital cases; extended to noncapital cases in State v.”
Jones v. Ryan, 327 F. Supp. 3d 1157 (D. Ariz. 2018).
· cites it 10× “) The Arizona Supreme Court also ordered counsel to "direct requests for the appointment of investigators and experts to the superior court pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4013(B) and § 13-4041(J)." ( Id.”
State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 800 P.2d 1260 (Ariz. 1990).
· cites it 3× “Failure to Appoint Experts for Rule 32 Hearing Defendant contends that the trial court’s refusal to appoint experts, as requested in his rule 32 petition, denied his right to effective assistance of counsel, constituted unconstitutional discrimination based on indigency, and…”
State v. Clabourne, 690 P.2d 54 (Ariz. 1984).
· cites it 4× “This rule was intended to give the trial court the authority to appoint additional experts when those already appointed request assistance.”
State v. Cornell, 878 P.2d 1352 (Ariz. 1994).
· cites it 4× “He advances several reasons for the proposition that later interviews would not have been an acceptable substitute for the original interviews. Because Defendant was indigent, the trial court had both a constitutional and statutory duty to provide him with certain essential…”
State v. Eastlack, 883 P.2d 999 (Ariz. 1994).
· cites it 4× “In Arizona, this right is codified at A.R.S. § 13-4013(B), which specifically provides: When a person is charged with a capital offense the court may on its own initiative and shall upon application of the defendant and a showing that the defendant is financially unable to pay…”
State v. Michael Apelt, 861 P.2d 634 (Ariz. 1993).
· cites it 4× “Denial of Request for ex parte Hearing Michael requested that the trial court hold an ex parte hearing so he could *365 present a request for expert assistance under A.R.S. § 13-4013 without “tipping his hand” to the prosecution.”
State v. Williams, 904 P.2d 437 (Ariz. 1995).
· cites it 4× “2d 54, 66 (1984); see also A.R.S. § 13-4013 (1989) (granting indigent defendants in capital cases the right to such experts as are reasonably necessary).”
Amaya-Ruiz v. Stewart, 136 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (D. Ariz. 2001).
· cites it 7× “Furthermore, it appears to the Court that A.R.S. § 13-4013 is of little assistance at this stage of a prisoner’s capital proceedings.”
State v. Murray, 906 P.2d 542 (Ariz. 1995).
· cites it 2× “See AR.S. § 13-4013(B) (1989) (indigent defendant charged with capital offense is entitled to investigator and expert witnesses deemed reasonably necessary to present defense).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4013(A) — 1 case
Amaya-Ruiz v. Stewart, 136 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (D. Ariz. 2001).
“Furthermore, it appears to the Court that A.R.S. § 13-4013 is of little assistance at this stage of a prisoner’s capital proceedings.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4013(B) — 29 cases
State v. Bocharski, 22 P.3d 43 (Ariz. 2001).
“See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-4013(B) (1989) (requiring counties to pay for experts and investigators in capital proceedings upon a showing that it is reasonably necessary to provide an indigent's defense); State v.”
State v. Barreras, 892 P.2d 852 (Ariz. 1995).
“Compliance with Ake and A.R.S. § 13-4013 Relying on Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.”
Jones v. Ryan, 327 F. Supp. 3d 1157 (D. Ariz. 2018).
“) The Arizona Supreme Court also ordered counsel to "direct requests for the appointment of investigators and experts to the superior court pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4013(B) and § 13-4041(J)." ( Id.”
State v. Cornell, 878 P.2d 1352 (Ariz. 1994).
“He advances several reasons for the proposition that later interviews would not have been an acceptable substitute for the original interviews. Because Defendant was indigent, the trial court had both a constitutional and statutory duty to provide him with certain essential…”
State v. Eastlack, 883 P.2d 999 (Ariz. 1994).
“In Arizona, this right is codified at A.R.S. § 13-4013(B), which specifically provides: When a person is charged with a capital offense the court may on its own initiative and shall upon application of the defendant and a showing that the defendant is financially unable to pay…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4013(b) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.