22-4508.
Investigative, expert and other services; ex parte proceedings; compensation; claim, approval, payment.
An attorney other than a public defender who acts as counsel for a defendant who is financially unable to obtain investigative, expert or other services necessary to an adequate defense in the defendant's case may request them in an ex parte application addressed to the district court where the action is pending. Upon finding, after appropriate inquiry in the ex parte proceeding, that the services are necessary and that the defendant is financially unable to obtain them, the district court shall authorize counsel to obtain the services on behalf of the defendant. The district court may, in the interests of justice, and upon a finding that timely procurement of necessary services could not await prior authorization, ratify such services after they have been obtained. Within the standards and guidelines adopted by the state board of indigents' defense services, the district court shall determine reasonable compensation for the services and approve payment to the organization or person who rendered them upon the filing of a certified claim for compensation supported by a written statement specifying the time expended, services rendered, expenses incurred on behalf of the defendant, and the compensation received in the same case or for the same services from any other source. Payment shall be made in the manner provided in K.S.A. 22-4507, and amendments thereto.
History:
L. 1969, ch. 291, § 8; L. 1982, ch. 142, § 18; L. 1984, ch. 133, § 1; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
34
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1971–2024 · leading case:
Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985).
Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985).
· cites it 2× “19; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-4508 (Supp. 1983); Ky.”
State v. Dunn, 758 P.2d 718 (Kan. 1988).
· cites it 4× “DENIAL OF FUNDS FOR EXPERT EXAMINATION BY A PSYCHIATRIST K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 22-4508 provides for authorization of funds for expert services if the judge determines that services are necessary and that the defendant is financially unable to obtain them.”
State v. Breitenbach, 483 P.3d 448 (Kan. 2021).
· cites it 3× “DID THE DISTRICT COURT ERR IN DENYING BREITENBACH'S REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT DNA TESTING? Breitenbach first argues that the district court erred in denying his request for additional DNA testing under K.S.A. 22-4508 and that the error constituted an abuse of discretion when the…”
State v. Burnett, 563 P.2d 451 (Kan. 1977).
· cites it 5× “At arraignment he pled not guilty, and not guilty by reason of insanity, and the court on motion authorized his counsel to incur the costs of procuring the services of a qualified psychiatrist, such costs to be defrayed by the state indigent defendant fund pursuant to K.S.A.…”
In Re Jones, 612 P.2d 1211 (Kan. 1980).
· cites it 4× “A defendant requesting a mental examination pursuant to K.S.A. 22-4508 may request a physician of such defendant's own choosing.”
State v. Lumbrera, 845 P.2d 609 (Kan. 1992).
· cites it 2× “K.S.A. 22-4508 provides, in pertinent part: “An attorney other than a public defender who acts as counsel for a defendant who is financially unable to obtain investigative, expert or other services necessary to an adequate defense in the defendant’s case may request them in an…”
State v. Touchet, 642 So. 2d 1213 (La. 1994).
· cites it 2× “With the exception of those sentiments set forth herein, I concur in the majority opinion, and I concur in the result therein.”
State v. Phipps, 418 S.E.2d 178 (N.C. 1992).
· cites it 2× “See Kan.Stat.Ann. § 22-4508 (1988); S.C.Code Ann.”
State v. Hall, 257 P.3d 263 (Kan. 2011).
· cites it 2× “22-3219 and K.S.A. 22-4508. K.S.A. 22-3219 deals with the defense of lack of mental state by reason of mental disease or defect at the time of the charged crime or crimes.”
Mebane v. State, 902 P.2d 494 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 3× “2d 720 (1992), the defense requested a continuance to allow time for DNA testing and requested that the State pay for such testing pursuant to K.S.A. 22-4508. The trial court denied the request, in part, because it was made only two days before trial.”
State v. Mayberry, 807 P.2d 86 (Kan. 1991).
“The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mayberry’s motions for a change of venue.”
State v. Snodgrass, 843 P.2d 720 (Kan. 1992).
· cites it 2× “K.S.A. 22-4508 provides, in relevant part: “An attorney other than a public defender who acts as counsel for a defendant who is financially unable to obtain investigative, expert or other services necessary to an adequate defense in the defendant’s case may request them in an ex…”
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.