ex parte hearing in North Carolina

1999See State v. White, 340 N.C. 264, 277 , 457 S.E.2d 841, 849 (1995) (holding that an indigent defendant’s request for an investigator is not entitled to an ex parte hearing because an investigator is more analogous to a fingerprint expert than a psychiatric expert).

1999See State v. White, 340 N.C. 264, 277 , 457 S.E.2d 841, 849 (1995) (holding that an indigent defendant’s request for an investigator is not entitled to an ex parte hearing because an investigator is more analogous to a fingerprint expert than a psychiatric expert).

1999The Court went on to state that “[w]hereas an indigent defendant’s access to the ‘basic tools of an adequate defense’ is a core requirement of a fundamentally fair trial, the need for an ex parte hearing on a motion for expert assistance is not.” Id. at 450 , 418 S.E.2d at 190 .

1993Although we stated in Phipps that “an ex parte hearing is not constitutionally required in every case,” we acknowledged that “[t]here are strong reasons for conducting the hearing ex parte,” id. at 451, 418 S.E.2d at 191 , including the defendant’s “right to obtain [the expert] assistance [necessary to assist in preparing his defense] without losing the opportunity to prepare the defense in secret.” Id. at 449 , 418 S.E.2d at 189 (quoting Brooks v. State, 259 Ga. 562, 565 , 385 S.E.2d 81, 84 (1989)). *519 When the indigent defendant is seeking the assistance of a psychiatric expert, the “stron

1999The Court went on to state that “[w]hereas an indigent defendant’s access to the ‘basic tools of an adequate defense’ is a core requirement of a fundamentally fair trial, the need for an ex parte hearing on a motion for expert assistance is not.” Id. at 450 , 418 S.E.2d at 190 .

1993Under the facts of that case, we concluded: “Whereas an indigent defendant’s access to the ‘basic tools of an adequate defense’ is a core requirement of a fundamentally fair trial, the need for an ex parte hearing on a motion for expert assistance is not.” Phipps, 331 N.C. at 450 , 418 S.E.2d at 190 (quoting Ake, 470 U.S. at 77 , 84 L.

2013See Henry, 315 N.C. at 494 , 340 S.E.2d at 733 ; Mackey, 443 U.S. at 13 , 61 L.Ed. 2d at 331 .

2013See Henry, 315 N.C. at 494 , 340 S.E.2d at 733 ; Mackey, 443 U.S. at 13 , 61 L.Ed. 2d at 331 .

2013See Hensey, 201 N.C.

2009See Potts v. Potts, 19 N.C.

2009In discussing this issue the Court of Appeals' majority opined that "what the act seeks to accomplish is to protect individuals from domestic violence through, inter alia, the imposition of an enhanced sentencing to serve as a deterrent against those who perpetrate the violence." State v. Byrd, 185 N.C.App. 597, 603 , 649 S.E.2d 444, 449 (2007).

2009In discussing this issue the Court of Appeals' majority opined that "what the act seeks to accomplish is to protect individuals from domestic violence through, inter alia, the imposition of an enhanced sentencing to serve as a deterrent against those who perpetrate the violence." State v. Byrd, 185 N.C.App. 597, 603 , 649 S.E.2d 444, 449 (2007).

2002See State v. White, 340 N.C. 264, 276 , 457 S.E.2d 841, 848 (no ex parte hearing was required on defendant’s motion for funds to hire private investigator), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 994 , 133 L.

2002See State v. White, 340 N.C. 264, 276 , 457 S.E.2d 841, 848 (no ex parte hearing was required on defendant’s motion for funds to hire private investigator), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 994 , 133 L.

1999Instead, the trial court heard from the State and the defendant regarding this request and denied defendant’s motion finding that “an identification expert is not essential to the defense.” To first establish a threshold showing of need for expert assistance, a defendant must prove that “(1) he will be deprived of a fair trial without the expert assistance, or (2) there is a reasonable likelihood that the expert assistance will materially assist him in the preparation of his case.” State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 284 , 389 S.E.2d 48, 58 (1990).

1999Instead, the trial court heard from the State and the defendant regarding this request and denied defendant’s motion finding that “an identification expert is not essential to the defense.” To first establish a threshold showing of need for expert assistance, a defendant must prove that “(1) he will be deprived of a fair trial without the expert assistance, or (2) there is a reasonable likelihood that the expert assistance will materially assist him in the preparation of his case.” State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 284 , 389 S.E.2d 48, 58 (1990).

1992See United States v. Dolack, 484 F.2d 528 (10th Cir. 1973); United States v. Sutton, 464 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Theriault, 440 F.2d 713 (5th Cir. 1971); Marshall v. United States, 423 F.2d 1315 (10th Cir. 1970).

1992See United States v. Dolack, 484 F.2d 528 (10th Cir.1973); United States v. Sutton, 464 F.2d 552 (5th Cir.1972); United States v. Theriault, 440 F.2d 713 (5th Cir.1971); Marshall v. United States, 423 F.2d 1315 (10th Cir.1970).

1992In Thor v. United States, 574 F.2d 215, 219 (5th Cir. 1978), the court said ‘the right to an ex parte hearing pursuant to [Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure] 17(b) does not appear to rise to a constitutional level.” The federal rule considered in Thor provides for issuance of subpoenas and the payment of witness fees for indigent defendants.

1992NOTES [1] It appears from the transcript, though with less than complete clarity, that Lois Bailey and Lola Simpson are one and the same. [2] In Thor v. United States, 574 F.2d 215, 219 (5th Cir.1978), the court said "the right to an ex parte hearing pursuant to [Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure] 17(b) does not appear to rise to a constitutional level." The federal rule considered in Thor provides for issuance of subpoenas and the payment of witness fees for indigent defendants.