representation -- Funding responsibility -- Finance and Administration special
account and payment.
(1) Any defending attorney operating under the provisions of this chapter is entitled to
use the same state facilities for the evaluation of evidence as are available to the
attorney representing the Commonwealth. If he or she considers their use
impractical, the court of competent jurisdiction in which the case is pending may
authorize the use of private facilities to be paid for on court order from the special
account of the Finance and Administration Cabinet.
(2) The defending attorney may request to be heard ex parte and on the record with
regard to using private facilities under subsection (1) of this section. If the
defending attorney so requests, the court shall conduct the hearing ex parte and on
the record.
(3) Any direct expense, including the cost of a transcript or bystander's bill of
exceptions or other substitute for a transcript that is necessarily incurred in
representing a needy person under this chapter, are charges against the county,
urban-county government, charter county government, unified local government, or
consolidated local government on behalf of which the service is performed and shall
be paid from the special account established in subsection (4) of this section and in
accordance with procedures provided in subsection (5) of this section. However, a
charge under this subsection shall not exceed the established rate charged by the
Commonwealth and its agencies.
(4) The consolidated local government, charter county government, unified local
government, fiscal court of each county, or legislative body of an urban-county
government shall annually appropriate twelve and a half cents ($0.125) per capita of
the population of the county, as determined by the Council of Local Governments'
most recent population statistics, to a special account to be administered by the
Finance and Administration Cabinet to pay court orders entered against counties
pursuant to subsection (1) or (3) of this section. The funds in this account shall not
lapse and shall remain in the special account.
(5) The Finance and Administration Cabinet shall pay all court orders entered pursuant
to subsection (1) or (3) of this section from the special account until the funds in the
account are depleted. If in any given year the special account, including any funds
from prior years, is depleted and court orders entered against counties pursuant to
subsection (1) or (3) of this section for that year or any prior year remain unpaid, the
Finance and Administration Cabinet shall pay those orders from the Treasury in the
same manner in which judgments against the Commonwealth and its agencies are
paid.
(6) Expenses incurred in the representation of needy persons confined in a state
correctional institution shall be paid from the special account established in
subsection (4) of this section and in accordance with the procedures provided in
subsection (5) of this section.
(7) Only court orders entered after July 15, 1994, shall be payable from the special
account administered by the Finance and Administration Cabinet or from the
Treasury as provided in subsections (4) and (5) of this section.
Effective: July 15, 2014
History: Amended 2014 Ky. Acts ch. 87, sec. 5, effective July 15, 2014. -- Amended
2002 Ky. Acts ch. 283, sec. 13, effective July 15, 2002; and ch. 346, sec. 8, effective
July 15, 2002. -- Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 491, sec. 5, effective July 15, 1998. --
Amended 1994 Ky. Acts ch. 395, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1994. -- Created 1974 Ky.
Acts ch. 358, sec. 11.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
42
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case:
Hodge v. Coleman, 244 S.W.3d 102 (Ky. 2008).
Hodge v. Coleman, 244 S.W.3d 102 (Ky. 2008).
· cites it 50× “" [2] Despite Stopher 's sweeping prohibition against the application of KRS 31.185 to post-conviction proceedings, approximately one year later we issued Commonwealth v.”
Stopher v. Conliffe, 170 S.W.3d 307 (Ky. 2005).
· cites it 9× “42 motion and requested an ex parte hearing under KRS 31.185 at which he would seek funds for an expert to support his motion.”
McCracken Cnty. Fiscal Court v. Graves, 885 S.W.2d 307 (Ky. 1994).
· cites it 11× “THE PRECEDENT In Perry County, supra, we considered the proper statutory construction of KRS 31.185, which mandates that the county government must fund court-authorized use of private facilities for the evaluation of evidence on behalf of indigent defendants.”
Commonwealth v. Wooten, 269 S.W.3d 857 (Ky. 2008).
· cites it 12× “The Court of Appeals agreed with the Commonwealth that KRS 31.185 does not authorize funds for a defense expert on the issue of competence to stand trial, and that under the applicable statute, KRS 504.”
Shannon Geary v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 490 S.W.3d 354 (Ky. 2016).
· cites it 9× “, CONCURRING IN RESULT: Under KRS 31.185, an attorney representing an indigent criminal defendant is "entitled to use the same state facilities for the evaluation of evidence as are available to the attorney 14 representing the Commonwealth.”
White v. Commonwealth, 500 S.W.3d 208 (Ky. 2016).
· cites it 6× “00 for a private psychologist “without the requisite showing that use of a state facility is somehow • impractical” as provided in KRS 31.185. Commonwealth v. Paisley, 201 S.”
Bowling v. Commonwealth, 80 S.W.3d 405 (Ky. 2002).
· cites it 2× “42 evidentiary hearing, defense counsel testified that he agreed to the use of the state facilities because of his interpretation of the applicable law at the time, which' — according to the legislative history of KRS 31.185 — provided in pertinent part: Any defending attorney…”
Com. of Ky. v. Cambron, 546 S.W.3d 556 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 4× “While Cambron references KRS 31.185, that provision pertains only to ex parte requests for funds for items such as transcripts, *569 testing at a private facility when use of a state facility has been shown to be impractical, or contracting with an expert witness needed to mount…”
White v. Payne, 332 S.W.3d 45 (Ky. 2011).
· cites it 6× “He alleges that Judge Payne’s order, that he be assessed by KCPC, is not statutorily authorized by KRS 31.185, KRS 504.080, or this Court’s precedents, and instead seeks $5,000.”
McKinney v. Commonwealth, 60 S.W.3d 499 (Ky. 2001).
· cites it 2× “110(1)(b) states that an indigent defendant is entitled "[t]o be provided with the necessary services and facilities of representation including investigation and other preparation.”
Smith v. Commonwealth, 734 S.W.2d 437 (Ky. 1987).
· cites it 2× “260, and in view of that statute and the limited purposes for which autopsy reports can be admitted, admission of the reports without ordering funds for the appearance or deposition of the medical examiner was not error. Smith was not denied a fair trial by the refusal of the…”
Partin v. Commonwealth, 337 S.W.3d 639 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× “285 nor KRS 31.185 applied. This appeal followed.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 31.185(1) — 15 cases
Shannon Geary v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 490 S.W.3d 354 (Ky. 2016).
“, CONCURRING IN RESULT: Under KRS 31.185, an attorney representing an indigent criminal defendant is "entitled to use the same state facilities for the evaluation of evidence as are available to the attorney 14 representing the Commonwealth.”
Commonwealth v. Wooten, 269 S.W.3d 857 (Ky. 2008).
“The Court of Appeals agreed with the Commonwealth that KRS 31.185 does not authorize funds for a defense expert on the issue of competence to stand trial, and that under the applicable statute, KRS 504.”
McKinney v. Commonwealth, 60 S.W.3d 499 (Ky. 2001).
“110(1)(b) states that an indigent defendant is entitled "[t]o be provided with the necessary services and facilities of representation including investigation and other preparation.”
White v. Commonwealth, 500 S.W.3d 208 (Ky. 2016).
“00 for a private psychologist “without the requisite showing that use of a state facility is somehow • impractical” as provided in KRS 31.185. Commonwealth v. Paisley, 201 S.”
White v. Payne, 332 S.W.3d 45 (Ky. 2011).
“He alleges that Judge Payne’s order, that he be assessed by KCPC, is not statutorily authorized by KRS 31.185, KRS 504.080, or this Court’s precedents, and instead seeks $5,000.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 31.185(2) — 8 cases
Hodge v. Coleman, 244 S.W.3d 102 (Ky. 2008).
“" [2] Despite Stopher 's sweeping prohibition against the application of KRS 31.185 to post-conviction proceedings, approximately one year later we issued Commonwealth v.”
Com. of Ky. v. Cambron, 546 S.W.3d 556 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018).
“While Cambron references KRS 31.185, that provision pertains only to ex parte requests for funds for items such as transcripts, *569 testing at a private facility when use of a state facility has been shown to be impractical, or contracting with an expert witness needed to mount…”
Commonwealth v. Wooten, 269 S.W.3d 857 (Ky. 2008).
“The Court of Appeals agreed with the Commonwealth that KRS 31.185 does not authorize funds for a defense expert on the issue of competence to stand trial, and that under the applicable statute, KRS 504.”
Stopher v. Conliffe, 170 S.W.3d 307 (Ky. 2005).
“42 motion and requested an ex parte hearing under KRS 31.185 at which he would seek funds for an expert to support his motion.”
White v. Commonwealth, 500 S.W.3d 208 (Ky. 2016).
“00 for a private psychologist “without the requisite showing that use of a state facility is somehow • impractical” as provided in KRS 31.185. Commonwealth v. Paisley, 201 S.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 31.185(3) — 2 cases
Hodge v. Coleman, 244 S.W.3d 102 (Ky. 2008).
“" [2] Despite Stopher 's sweeping prohibition against the application of KRS 31.185 to post-conviction proceedings, approximately one year later we issued Commonwealth v.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 31.185(4) — 1 case
Hodge v. Coleman, 244 S.W.3d 102 (Ky. 2008).
“" [2] Despite Stopher 's sweeping prohibition against the application of KRS 31.185 to post-conviction proceedings, approximately one year later we issued Commonwealth v.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 31.185(l) — 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.